Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the European Economic Community Council to instruct the European Economic Community Trade Ministers to consider effective trade measures against South Africa.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss the situation in South Africa and action by European Economic Community member states.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how many European Economic Community member states support Her Majesty's Government in their opposition to economic measures against South Africa.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The Twelve are united in a common policy towards South Africa designed to hasten the process of peaceful reform and to encourage the South African Government to begin a dialogue with genuine representatives of the black population. The European Council recently entrusted my right hon. and learned Friend with a mission to southern Africa, the aim of which is to try to help establish the conditions in which the necessary negotiations can commence. He is currently visiting Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique in pursuit of this objective, and plans to travel to South Africa towards the end of the month.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible and sane for her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to call off this useless charade, especially now that it has been condemned as a fudge by President Kaunda? The ANC will not meet him, the Church leaders do not want to see him, and even his friend, President Botha, is keeping him waiting. Would it not be more sensible for him to stop making a spectacle of himself, call off this farce and return home and try to persuade the Prime Minister to listen to the views of the black population, who want meaningful economic sanctions.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is very wrong. The Heads of Government of the Twelve agreed on an urgent

need for genuine dialogue on the future of South Africa. They wish a further effort to be made to seek to establish conditions in which dialogue can commence. This is not a lost cause. We are trying again the road to persuasion. As the Prime Minister said in The Guardian this morning:
We can still help to get negotiations started.
When a meeting is sought with the ANC or with any other group, I hope that there will be a positive response. It is quite certain that in meeting my right hon. and learned Friend President Kaunda also believes that there is a future in dialogue through negotiation.

Mr. Hardy: In order to obtain a realistic record, will the Minister of State tell the House which Governments of the member states of the EEC are willing to apply sanctions and which are opposed to sanctions?

Mrs. Chalker: There is not a complete list. A number of countries believe that pressure should be applied, but many countries and many people who have called for sanctions believe that effective measures may not necessarily be general economic sanctions, to which Britain is opposed. It is through the consultations that my right hon. and learned Friend and others are undertaking that, if necessary, we will find what effective measures may have to be considered by the European Council and at the Commonwealth review meeting.

Mr. Wareing: Is it not a fact that the EEC countries have allowed themselves to be bullied and manoeuvred by the Prime Minister? Because of the need to have a unified policy, they have had to give way to the attacks being made by the Prime Minister upon the idea of economic sanctions. Can the Minister of State name just one country in the EEC that is doing less than Britain to bring pressure to bear upon South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is sadly wrong. Other countries in the EEC are taking a variety of measures, and we are certainly taking as many as any of them.

Sir Peter Blaker: In view of the petty party point-scoring by Opposition Members, would it not be as well for the House to remember that it was a Conservative Government who secured a solution to the problem of Rhodesia after years of abject failure by a Labour Government?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I seem to remember a previous Prime Minister thinking that he could effect a quick answer in about 1965, but it took another 14 years. It was a Conservative Government who brought to an end the tragedies in Zimbabwe. I hope that all the efforts, not only of this Government, but of my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the European Community, will lead to a framework for dialogue within which we can bring an end to the awful violence which is taking place on all sides in South Africa.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no option now, whatever our individual views may be, but to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his enterprise and efforts in southern Africa? Will she emphasise that he goes there on behalf of all EEC countries with strong United States links and that, therefore, he represents overwhelmingly the majority of South Africa's major trading partners? Will my hon.


Friend also emphasise to South Africa that, if it does not have the sense to listen to my right hon. and learned Friend, it may not get another chance?

Mrs. Chalker: I endorse wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend has said about the significance of this mission. It offers an important opportunity to break the cycle of violence in South Africa and to promote the very necessary dialogue and negotiation that we all want to see. My right hon. and learned Friend's mission deserves the support of the entire international community. Those Opposition Members or others who seek to talk it down for narrow partisan reasons should ask themselves seriously whether they are doing the cause any good at all. I remind the House that five of South Africa's major trading partners are united behind my right hon. and learned Friend's mission to find a peaceful solution to the terrible problems of apartheid.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members, who have a genuine concern for the rights of black people in South Africa believe that dialogue is better than monologue and find faintly nauseating the antics of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in constantly trying to make partisan points which do no good whatsoever for the aspirations of black people in South Africa? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing, but, if he is unsuccessful, we expect the Government to align themselves with our friends in the Community and in the Commonwealth and take whatever action is considered to be appropriate?

Mrs. Chalker: The dialogue upon which my right hon. and learned Friend has embarked is the last chance perhaps to get a successful dialogue going. It is wrong to assume that this mission will fail. I have seen all sorts of headlines and comments by right hon. and hon. Members. What is going on is a gradual, steady effort to make sure that everybody who can be involved is involved in the dialogue, which must surely come. I sincerely hope that all right hon. and hon. Members and the media will see that what is really going on is a positive effort to start the dialogue for negotiations between all peoples in South Africa.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Lady understand, from what the Prime Minister said on the radio this morning, that there are no economic measures that the Government would contemplate using if the Foreign Secretary's visit does not achieve the results that were set out for it? If that is so, how will that help the Foreign Secretary in his task?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said nothing different this morning from what she has said before. This morning on the radio programme "Today" she said:
I am and remain against punitive economic sanctions—general economic sanctions.
However—and the hon. Gentleman did not refer to this —my right hon. Friend then said that she understood that the Commonwealth was very concerned that we
show what they call signals or gestures of disapproval of South African policy of apartheid … and we agree with those and operate them, as a gesture, a signal to South Africa that the world thoroughly disapproves of the system of apartheid and wants it to end.
I can find no fault whatever with that policy, which is the policy of the whole Government.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the economic sanctions that have been taken by this Government and others against South Africa have already resulted in starvation, lengthening dole queues and a lot of misery to black South Africans? Will she take this opportunity to clear her own position: that she shares the view of her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that economic sanctions are not the answer? Will she get a message through to her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he must not ask of the South African Government anything that they cannot possibly deliver in these circumstances?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman gets paid for saying that. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that I do not know what was said. What word should be withdrawn?

Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) alleged that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was paid to put his question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If that is so, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Winnick: I do not wish to take time out of Question Time. May I deal with the matter at the end of Question Time?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us set off in a good way. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that remark? He is an hon. Member, like everybody else.

Mr. Winnick: I have the greatest respect for you, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced in my mind that what I said was absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may be convinced about in his own mind, in this Chamber he must withdraw that comment.

Mr. Winnick: I shall do so only because of your ruling, and for no other reason, because I have not changed my mind one tiny bit. However, if you tell me to do so, in your capacity as Speaker, although what I believe is true, I have no alternative but to withdraw. Only in those circumstances do I withdraw.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

Mrs. Chalker: The matter of South Africa is terribly serious, and it behoves the House not to catcall in one way or another. We want to see a speedy end to the awful regime of apartheid. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) says that general economic sanctions will have, and have had, damaging consequences before. I must point out that it is the potentially very serious effects on South Africa's neighbours, as well as on black people in South Africa, if general economic sanctions were to be applied, that makes us consult so widely and seriously about the best way to bring about an


effective change in South Africa. That is what my right hon and learned Friend will do throughout his mission and thereafter.

Mr. Healey: Does the Minister believe that the Foreign Secretary's chances of success in his mission have been improved by the fusillade of interviews given by the Prime Minister since he left London? In the course of those interviews the Prime Minister said that she was sorry that South Africa was not in the Commonwealth, she severely criticised the Governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe, she said that she was against economic sanctions in general, that she would support signs and gestures but did not believe that they would have any effect, and, finally, she said that she hoped the Commonwealth summit would take no action on South Africa. Has the Prime Minister not cut the ground from under the Foreign Secretary's feet and made his mission impossible?

Mrs. Chalker: If anyone has made my right hon. and learned Friend's position impossible, and sought to persuade persons, as I understand it, not even to meet him, it is the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Healey: That is absolutely untrue.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands very well the anger, despair and hopelessness of many people in South Africa and southern Africa. She fully supports the mission undertaken on behalf of the European Community by my right hon. and learned Friend, and she is seeking in every way possible to make sure that we view the possibilities ahead in a realistic way that will help to bring about that necessary pressure on the South African Government.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to give the Minister a chance to withdraw the disgraceful statement that I sought to persuade African leaders not to see the Foreign Secretary. I ask her to consult the high commissioner in Lusaka, with whom I stayed, who will tell her that I spent the whole visit trying to persuade President Kaunda to see the Foreign Secretary and to withdraw his threat to leave the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Chalker: I would like the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have frequently had good and thoughtful discussions on this subject, to assert in the House this afternoon that he fully supports my right hon. and learned Friend's intention and wish to meet the ANC and all other groups with which we seek to promote dialogue in an effort to bring an end to apartheid. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I had understood that that had happened. If that is not the case—the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough; he knows I will withdraw—I ask him to assert here this afternoon that he is fully in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend meeting all the political groups and all the people whom he seeks to meet in an effort to bring about the dialogue that we all urgently want.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on the next question.

Mr. MacKenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government against the present Government of South Africa.

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies towards South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: The Government have implemented a wide range of measures against South Africa, including the United Nations arms embargo, the Gleneagles agreement and those agreed with our Commonwealth partners at Nassau and our European partners in Luxembourg in 1985. We have also made representations to the South African Government on a number of issues, most recently the restrictions imposed under the state of emergency and the detention without charge of a large number of people. Our objectives remain an end to apartheid, a solution to the South African problem by negotiation and a suspension of violence on all sides. We shall continue with all our partners to do everything we can to help achieve those goals.

Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Minister accept that many hon. Members who dislike any form of extremism clearly believe that what has been done has not been enough? If we are to show our intense dislike of the fundamental philosophies of the South African Government, clearly much stronger measures will have to be taken than those that the Minister has just announced. That view is shared by many people, not least by the Church of Scotland, which has considerable experience of African questions.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Obviously the measures that we, together with other countries, have sought to take have not been enough, because they have not yet brought an end to apartheid. However, we should remember that considerable steps have begun to be taken in South Africa. They are not sufficient and, indeed, they must be followed by further steps to end apartheid as speedily as possible. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of the European Council meeting the Community will look at other measures that might be needed.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing but bloodshed will be achieved unless the South African Government and all sections of the community there can be induced to speak, and that no amount of pressure on one section of the community or another which drives sections of the community into a bunker will help anybody? What measures does my hon. Friend envisage will achieve proper talks for the whole community?

Mrs. Chalker: It would be presumptious of me to say what further measures might bring about the much sought after peace that we all wish to see. It is right, during this period leading up to the Commonwealth review and further European meetings, that we should continue to discuss with our partners the real effects of each measure which has been discussed, because it is only when we measure how many people might be put out of work in southern Africa and how many might be brought to much greater hardship than they already suffer in South Africa and in the front-line states that we can judge the best way ahead.

Mr. Barnett: One of the arguments which the Prime Minister repeatedly uses against economic sanctions against South Africa is the damage that she believes they will do to the economies of front-line states and to the


African people in South Africa. What rights does the Prime Minister believe she has to speak on behalf of African people in the front-line states or South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: It is not just my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who believes that general economic sanctions would not bring about an end to apartheid. On 2 July, in The Times, Mrs. Helen Suzman said:
What they would do, in fact, is to lay off workers as the economy wound down— a sombre prospect in a country with no social security safety net, no dole and no food stamps.
She went on to say:
Effective sanctions would wreck the economy and destroy the inheritance that blacks will undoubtedly share in the not-too-distant future.
I remind the House that Mrs. Helen Suzman has been a South African Opposition Member of Parliament since 1961, and I believe that she is as right as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those of us who wish to see genuine fundamental change in South Africa and who supported my hon. Friend in her decision to see Mr. Oliver Tambo regret bitterly the attitude of the ANC and Bishop Tutu in not being willing to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Does she also agree that it would help if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would use his considerable influence to encourage such meetings rather than to undermine my right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that it is my turn.
We understand exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend said. I previously invited, and do so again, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to assert in the House that he is very much in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary meeting all those whom he seeks to meet. When one sets out on a complicated mission such as this, I sincerely hope that hon. Members realise that it takes time to set up meetings between many others. When a meeting is sought, be it with the ANC or any other group, it is hoped that there will be a positive response, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Leeds, East will encourage.

Mr. Healey: I thank the Minister for withdrawing her earlier imputation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, she did not"] Yes, she did. The Minister will be aware that I met Mr. Oliver Tambo before I left for South Africa and strongly encouraged him to meet the hon. Lady. He was minded not to do so, as I am sure she knows—[Interruption.] Yes, that is the case. When I was in' Lusaka I suggested that the Foreign Secretary's visit would give the ANC an opportunity of pursuing discussions and, in fact, I invited the Foreign Secretary in this House on Monday of this week to seek to meet the ANC on his visit. But the hon. Lady must accept that the depth of feeling against the British Prime Minister among the Governments of the front-line states and among many Commonwealth and European countries, as illustrated by the withdrawal of Nigeria from the Commonwealth Games today, is something about which the Prime Minister should be a great deal more sensitive than she showed herself to be in the bizarre series of inteviews to which I referred.

Mrs. Chalker: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not asserted what I asked him to assert.

Mr. Healey: I have.

Mrs. Chalker: There needs to be not just an emotional response to the many emotional comments being made on this issue, but a realistic assessment of what the possibilities and effective measures might be. It is positive measures as well as restrictive measures that are most likely to be effective in promoting change in South Africa. If every hon. Member will consider the consequences of each and every point that is being discussed, we might come up with a far better solution than the ones that are being shouted and barracked about by Opposition Members.

Portugal

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Portugal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): AngloPortuguese relations are excellent. This year we are celebrating the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor. This historical alliance is complemented by our joint membership of NATO and the European Community. Bilateral trade and tourism continue to flourish.

Mr. Brown: As there have been repeated calls for the release of Nelson Mandela, will the Government continue with their principled position by approaching the Portuguese Government and suggesting that it would be appropriate now to release Otelo Carualho, the leader of the 1974 revolution against Fascism? Is that not appropriate?

Mr. Eggar: It would not be appropriate for us to interfere in what is an internal judicial matter affecting Portugal.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend and the rest of the Foreign Office team use their best influences to grant a favourable response to the application for membership of the Western European Union which was lodged by the Portuguese Government some time ago and has since then languished upon the table?

Mr. Eggar: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. I know that there are other right hon. and hon. Members who feel similarly.

South Africa

Mr. Sedgemore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's response to the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group.

Mrs. Chalker: We are considering very carefully what response we should make to the report by the Eminent Persons Group and look forward to a full discussion of the way ahead with Commonwealth leaders at the review meeting in August. We believe that the group's objective of promoting dialogue in the context of a suspension of violence remains valid.

Mr. Sedgemore: Bearing in mind that black people in South Africa and in the front-line states, the Eminent


Persons Group and decent people in Western democracies want sanctions because they believe that liberty, freedom and democracy are more important than short-term material comforts, who does the Minister support—the civilised people of the world, or her shrivelled Prime Minister with her Judas mentality?

Mrs. Chalker: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman would sink so low. I have to remind him and many other hon. Members that the measures already in place are being lost sight of. We have been taking measures, positive as well as negative, for years. Prior to the agreement last year with our European partners, Britain had a policy of not trading with South Africa in arms or paramilitary equipment. not co-operating with them in military and nuclear spheres, not selling oils to South Africa, not selling computer equipment to the South African police or armed forces and discouraging sporting contacts. We made further agreements with our European partners at Luxembourg last year and, following the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit at Nassau last October, we ended Government-to-Government loans, ceased funding trading missions and agreed to ban the import of gold coins. Those measures are already in place. What we are discussing with our European partners, the Heads of the economic Seven and the Heads of the Commonwealth is what could be effective in making South Africa bring about a real end to apartheid. We shall go on doing that. It is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is working for, as well as the rest of the Government and Conservative Members.

Mr. Gow: To what extent, if at all, is British foreign affairs policy still based upon the principle that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states and on the basis that we should not enter into discussion with terrorist organisations or organisations that have not repudiated terrorism?

Mrs. Chalker: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I have to say that in South Africa, which is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, there are many British passport holders and many British people. There are also long links with South Africa. I do not think that in the efforts we are making we are in any way telling South Africa how the non-racial democracy that the whole world has been calling for should be brought about. That is for South Africa to agree with all its people.
On the subject of meeting groups that have been involved in terrorism of one sort or another, I have to say that my right hon. Friend, now the Home Secretary, met the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1982–83 in an effort to bring about understanding. I believe that we must meet groups to understand the situation if we are ever to resolve the differences that have led to the lack of dialogue and the totally unacceptable situation in South Africa.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister's interview on Canadian television last night did the greatest disservice to the report of the Eminent Persons Group? Does she accept that that was quite unconvincing — [Interruption.] There are those who might seek to thwart free speech in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you will not allow that to happen in the House. The Prime Minister said that she could not carry other countries with her on sanctions. Is that not unacceptable, given that she has introduced a veto in the Security Council?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that the reason why we have not been able to accept chapter 7 mandatory economic sanctions is the very fact that we believe that they would have a very deleterious effect and would not bring about the result which I believe the hon. Gentleman genuinely seeks in South Africa, which is an end to apartheid, the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other detainees, the removal of the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties and a start to dialogue and negotiation. If one considers that, and considers in full what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said rather than taking up partial comments, which is all that I have heard in the House today, one realises that one has to work as hard as one can for dialogue and an end to violence. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that, like the more responsible members of the Eminent Persons Group, that great British leader, Sir Winston Churchill, believed fervently in "jaw jaw" rather than "war war", whether it be about military or trade sanctions? Only the Soviet Union could benefit from trade sanctions. Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that while our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is in southern Africa, he will see Bishop Makoena of Soweto, who represents 4·5 million black Christians and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who represents 6 million black Africans? Both those distinguished leaders of black South Africans believe that sanctions will be damaging and do not wish the British Government to support sanctions against their country.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend and I. as well as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, are united in believing that general economic sanctions would not be in the best interests of the black people in southern Africa. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do his best to meet as many people like the gentlemen whom my hon. Friend suggested, and many others. It will be a question of time, and of what can be fitted in, but we are willing to listen to representations from all such people.

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in South Africa on the situation in the townships since the imposition of the state of emergency.

Mrs. Chalker: Her Majesty's embassy continues to keep us fully informed on all aspects of the situation in South Africa, including reports on visits by the ambassador and his staff to the townships.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Given the intolerable censorship imposed by the South African regime, how far do our diplomats have to conform to that censorship? Is it not important that the Government should be able to assist in the dissemination of genuine information from within South Africa, and how far would the hon. Lady assist that process?

Mrs. Chalker: As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's ambassador and his staff have not been stopped from going about their lawful business of travelling within normal restrictions in southern Africa. They have certainly reported on what they have found, on a confidential basis. Whether all that information could be verified at present it is impossible to know, because of the state of emergency.


It is, therefore, absolutely essential that that state of emergency is brought to a speedy end at the earliest possible time so that free reporting may start again in South Africa.

Mr. Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend will know of the magnificent work that is being done by the Urban Foundation in the townships. Is there any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not make a direct grant to the Urban Foundation for the work that it is doing in improving the lot and conditions of the people who live in the black townships?

Mrs. Chalker: I have been informed that the Urban Foundation was getting a great deal of finance from business in South Africa, which is absolutely right. We ourselves have added a further £15 million of new assistance over five years for southern Africa, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 1 July. That is in addition to some £22 million already committed, much of it going to South Africa and the neighbouring states for the very reasons that my hon. Friend would wish. I do not know whether it is feasible to fund the Urban Foundation in the way that my hon. Friend says, but I know that all the resources that are being used for helping black people in southern Africa are there to help their education and training, and the re-establishment of homes and schools. I believe that all offers will be welcome wherever they may come from—Government or the private sector.

Helsinki Final Act

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to attend the next conference concerning the Helsinki accords and conference in Vienna in November.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (Mr. Tim Renton): Participants in the conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe have not yet decided at what level to hold the opening session of the Vienna meeting. If it is at Foreign Minister level, my right hon. and learned Friend plans to attend.

Mr. Janner: Do the Government not find it odd that a conference on human rights is to be held in a country which has just elected Kurt Waldheim as President? When do the Government expect to conclude their investigations into the interrogation — and subsequent deaths — of British prisoners of war by German army group E — Waldheim's group? Will that be before the conference? Is there any hope of the Government achieving anything other than a cover-up if they will not even ask for access to the relevant documents from the files of the United Nations and the Federal Republic of Germany?

Mr. Renton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Madrid CSCE meeting, which concluded in 1983, provided for the next follow-up meeting to be held in Vienna from 4 November 1986. That is what will happen. As for the hon. and learned Gentleman's question about Dr. Waldheim, I mentioned to him when replying to the foreign affairs debate some weeks ago that the Ministry of Defence was still searching into its records with regard to the evidence and the details that the hon. and learned Gentleman sent to the Ministry. I understand

that the search is not yet complete, but when it is, the Minister will get in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend expedite those inquiries? Will he look into the case of Sergeant John Dryden, who fell into the hands of unit E, was interrogated and sent for special treatment under Waldheim?

Mr. Renton: The MOD is searching carefully into the evidence that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has sent. We cannot prejudge the results of that search, but the Ministry will be in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the search is completed.

Mr. James Lamond: Will whoever represents us at the conference draw to the attention of one signatory of the Helsinki Final Act—Turkey—the fact that we object strongly to its troops occupying the sovereign territory of another signatory to the Helsinki Final Act—Cyprus—refusing to withdraw troops, bringing settlers to northern Cyprus, trying to establish for all time that it has a right to be there, and refusing to co-operate in tracing the many hundreds of Greek Cypriots who disappeared during the invasion 12 years ago? Could not that matter be raised under the Helsinki Final Act?

Mr. Renton: The Vienna conference will deal with three broad matters following the Helsinki Final Act —security, economic and humanitarian matters. In the humanitarian part of the conference, the question of human rights in eastern Europe will be followed up actively, not least by members of our delegation.

Mr. Terlezki: When the Foreign Secretary goes to Vienna, will he be very positive and ask at the conference whether it would be possible to arrange for the Eminent Persons Group to visit the Soviet Union on a fact-finding tour, as there are millions of innocent people imprisoned and persecuted in the Soviet Union? What is good for the blacks is also right for whites.

Mr. Renton: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Moscow, led by that eminent person my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, handed over a list of human rights cases that it wished the Soviets to look into. The Soviet failure so far to implement the Helsinki Final Act, especially in relation to human rights, is a matter of great concern to us and one that will be taken up regularly at the Vienna meeting.

Mr. George Robertson: Before anyone goes to Vienna in the autumn, would it not be worth while for the British Government to speak out against the United States veto of the agreement almost reached at Berne in the same forthright terms as the President of the Federal Republic of Germany did last Wednesday in the Royal Gallery? Does the Minister agree that progress in freeing people from the artificial and wholly indefensible restrictions on their ability to travel will come about only when the United States starts to listen to its European allies?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman refers to the United States' refusal to agree to the summary document after the Berne meeting on human contacts. The United States delegation took the view that the document was in some ways a backward step from agreements that had been reached and announced publicly. That is why the United States delegation did not support the document. We took


the view that, although we should have liked to support it, the Americans had a perfectly understandable point of view of their own on that issue.

South Africa

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government are taking towards adopting economic measures against the South African regime.

Mrs. Chalker: We receive a large volume of correspondence both for and against the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa. Together with our European and Commonwealth partners, we have already adopted a number of restrictive measures towards South Africa designed to send a strong political signal of the need for fundamental reform, but it remains our view that general economic and trade sanctions would hinder rather than accelerate the process of peaceful change in South Africa, to which we are fully committed.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister of State aware that anyone who has the slightest doubt about the Prime Minister's true views on South Africa and the measures required need only read today's interview in The Guardian, in which she expresses the most craven and disgraceful appeasement of apartheid? No doubt the Prime Minister's comments will be noted by Commonwealth leaders. As the Minister of State has expressed quite different views both in the House and on television, is she proud to be arguing such a shoddy case at the Dispatch Box today?

Mrs. Chalker: I have not expressed different views. As an individual I may use different words, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, we are seeking exactly the same end and in the same way. If the hon. Gentleman continues to take such a partial view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's total opposition to apartheid and her repetition of the way in which economic sanctions would harm the black people of South Africa and the front-line states, he is taking a very one-sided and blinkered view of the reality of modern trade and the effect that economic sanctions would have on black people. I ask him to look again at the full facts of the situation.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's aim to take all measures necessary to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government to hurry up the process of reform and to carry through extensive reform so that, one hopes, there can still be evolutionary rather than revolutionary reform in that country?

Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 1 July, we are considering certain contingency plans outlined in the June communique following the European Council summit at The Hague. We are looking at positive as well as restrictive measures to bring about the change so urgently needed in South Africa. My hon. Friend has our assurance that that is being fully done.

Ms. Clare Short: The Minister asked us earlier to make a realistic assessment of the situation. Is not a realistic assessment that the South African Government are not willing to negotiate, which is why there is a state of emergency and why the whole of the leadership and the

trade union leadership are in prison? The South African people are willing to fight and die for their freedom. That is their only route to success, as it was for the people of Zimbabwe. The question is: which side are we on? If we say in advance of any talks that we are not willing to take either general economic sanctions or even punitive economic sanctions — the whole point of which is to punish and pressurise—does it not mean that we are not on the side of the fight for freedom by the black people of South Africa? That is what the whole world knows, to our shame.

Mrs. Chalker: The Government are doing, and will continue to do, all those things that are necessary to bring about peaceful change. I warn the hon. Lady that it is all too easy to talk about blanket general economic sanctions without realising their exact effect. It is obvious that many people, such as Chief Buthelezi, but also many others who represent the black communities, are gravely concerned about the effect of sanctions. I know from my discussions with many people, including Mr. Oliver Tambo, that they have no wish to inherit an economic desert, which would be the result of general economic sanctions.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Did my hon. Friend happen to see a very interesting programme on BBC television on Monday evening—one of its very rare moments of objectivity — called "The Other Side of the Sanctions Equation", which showed quite convincingly that the death rate of young African children in one of the homelands has doubled because of the economic measures already taken? Is that really what Opposition Members want to happen again and again?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend draws our attention to a programme which, sadly, I did not see, but to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred during questions yesterday. Of course we wish to take no measures that will inflict upon black people in South Africa and the other front-line states the sort of future that some unthinking Opposition Members seem to think should happen, without any care for those people —a care which this Government really have.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Lady is genuine in her desire to protect the peoples of black South Africa, will she today come to the Dispatch Box and say, quite simply, that when economic sanctions are imposed this country will give positive economic and political aid to those most in need in the front-line states?

Mrs. Chalker: It would be presumptuous of me to say today what will be in place, whether or not the South African Government take more rapid steps towards the ending of apartheid in the coming weeks. I have already said this afternoon, as the hon. Lady would know if she had been listening, that a further £15 million will be spent over five years—not only £12 million to help non-white South Africans, but £3 million for transport projects in the front-line states. We are giving that aid in addition to another £22 million already announced. The hon. Lady should possess herself in patience for the outcome of the discussions to bring an end to apartheid, through my right hon. and learned Friend's mission.

USSR (Human Rights)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek an


opportunity of raising the plight of religious minorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in his discussions with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union during Mr. Shevadnadze's visit to London on 14 and 15 July; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend and I expect to discuss with Mr. Shevadnadze the full range of issues in East-West relations, including arms control, regional questions and human rights. We shall bring to his attention the need for better implementation of commitments under the Helsinki and Madrid CSCE documents, in particular as regards the treatment of their citizens, including religious minorities.

Mr. Steen: While the Soviet Union understandably resents interference in its domestic policy, does my hon. Friend agree that human rights know no frontiers and that we need to encourage the Soviet Union to recognise the freedom of the individual and freedom from religious persecution as of paramount importance? When my hon. Friend sees the Foreign Minister, will he ask him to release Mr. Alexei Magarik, a Hebrew teacher recently sentenced to three years' hard labour for his teachings?

Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. It is absolutely right that, despite the commitments of the Soviet Union under both United Nations and CSCE documents that it has signed, it does not yet give freedom to religious minorities from persecution or allow them to leave the country if they wish. That is one of the commitments in those documents. I shall look into the case that my hon. Friend has referred to. We shall see whether it would be appropriate to include that among the matters that will be discussed with Mr. Shevadnadze.

Mr. Beith: While continuing to press the cases of those Jewish families seeking to emigrate, and continuing to press cases such as that of Irina Ratsushinskaya and other Christians imprisoned in the Soviet Union, will the hon. Gentleman press upon the Soviet Foreign Minister that nothing could do more to enhance the reputation of the Soviet Union in the West than a far more civilised attitude to such matters?

Mr. Renton: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am aware of the sad case of Irina Ratsushinskaya, about which many hon. Members have written to me. I raised the case with the new Soviet ambassador when he called on me some weeks ago. We shall consider including that case among those to be discussed with Mr. Shevadnadze.

Mr. Sumberg: Is not the best test of a free society how it treats its religious minorities? By that test, does not the Soviet Union stand condemned? When my hon. Friend meets the Soviet Foreign Minister, will he make it clear that we seek nothing less than a full implementation of the Helsinki agreement?

Mr. Renton: That is the attitude that we have taken on many occasions with Soviet Union Ministers. It is a point that we shall make again during Mr. Shevadnadze's visit next week.

Palestine Liberation Organisation

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will continue the dialogue started by his predecessor as President of the

Council of European Community Ministers, Mr. Hans Jan der Brock, with the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat.

Mr. Renton: We shall continue to maintain contact with the PLO, but at present we have no plans for further ministerial meetings.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the predecessor of the Foreign Secretary ended the contact between the PLO and the European Community? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be useful to promote some initiative that would follow on from the Venice declaration?

Mr. Renton: Our views on contacts with the PLO are well established. There are often contacts at official levels, but meetings at higher levels remain difficult while the PLO's policies reamin, to say the least, ambiguous on Israel's right to secure and recognised borders and on the use of violence.

Mr. Walters: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Palestinians, like any other people, should have the right to exercise their right of self-determination and also to choose their own leadership?

Mr. Renton: Yes. The principle of the right to self-determination is spelt out in the Venice declaration. It is a principle to which we subscribe. We agree strongly that Palestinians must choose their own representatives, including their leadership. Those people must be willing to take some risks to obtain peace in the middle east.

Mr. Faulds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the more the British Government tag along with the ignorant attitudes of the American Administration, the less likely is the advance of the Palestinian cause or peace in the middle east?

Mr. Renton: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman, who has a considerable knowledge of the middle east, overstates his case so dramatically and thus ruins a solid basis to some of his arguments.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend, in consideration of the Palestinian issue, would like to discuss with the Israeli Government their connivance at the cover-up of the murder of two unarmed Palestinian prisoners? Perhaps he would like to take with him the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who seems deeply concerned about the behaviour of international statesmen.

Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend has said. He will fully agree that the matter, about which we have all read a great deal, is obviously one to be pursued by the Israeli authorities. I have no doubt that they will do so with great care.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister observe that my hon. Friend's question, unlike his supplementary question, referred to a dialogue with Yasser Arafat? Before considering having any such dialogue, will the Minister consult the Governments of Syria and Jordan to see whether they are prepared to have a dialogue with Yasser Arafat, otherwise the truth will become apparent—that this man does not represent the Palestinian people, who are entitled to their rights, but not via the PLO?

Mr. Renton: I have read the same newspaper report as the hon. and learned Member, but it is clearly up to the PLO to decide who its leader should be.

South Africa

Mrs. Shields: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the South African Government on the release of Nelson Mandela.

Mrs. Chalker: The statement issued by European Community Heads of Government following the European Council meeting on the 26 and 27 of June at The Hague, called on the South African Government to release unconditionally Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. This was immediately communicated to the South African Government.

Mrs. Shields: What is the Foreign Secretary planning to do if, when he meets the South African authorities, they refuse his request that Mr. Mandela be released?

Mrs. Chalker: Should that unfortunately be the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions with the South African Government, I am sure that, when the matter is considered with the Heads of the Commonwealth, our European Community partners and the seven industrial nations, they will jointly decide on further action. We believe that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other detainees, but especially Nelson Mandela, is a key to bringing about the end to violence and to getting dialogue moving in South Africa for a peaceful, evolutionary solution to the problem.

Sir John Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that Nelson Mandela's release should not be unconditional but that it should be conditional upon his renouncing the use of violence, as has always been the principle behind the British Government's policy?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will be aware that when I met the acting President of the African National Congress I spent a good deal of the time trying to persuade Mr. Oliver Tambo and his colleagues that there was no way out of this problem by violence—that it had to be by negotiations. The unconditional release of Nelson Mandela represents one of the best hopes of controlling the violent elements that exist among black people and of bringing about some common sense in the great battle for a dialogue leading towards negotiation and an end to the violence.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mikardo — and a very happy birthday.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the hon. Lady be good enough to suggest to the Foreign Secretary that, when he meets South African Ministers, he ought to tell them the self-evident fact that the longer they delay talking to the Mandelas and the Tambos, the more likely it is that they will finish up talking to other people with whom they might find it much more difficult to reach agreement?

Mrs. Chalker: May I join you, Mr. Speaker, in wishing the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday.
The tragedy of not talking now is that that provides a perfect recruiting ground for Communists and people with other undesirable views in black opposition parties in South Africa. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend is using all his endeavours to bring about a framework for dialogue between all peoples in South Africa. I hope that the House will join me in wishing hirn the very best success in those efforts, which will be long and hard.

Jury Challenge (Roskill Report)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would make a statement about the Government's response to the recommendation in the Roskill report that random jury challenges be abolished.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): In the White Paper on plans for criminal justice legislation, we invited comments on concern which had been expressed about the right of the defence to challenge up to three jurors without giving cause. The White Paper set out several options for change, including abolition of peremptory challenge, as had been recommended by the Roskill committee on fraud trials. We have been reflecting on these options in the light of the response to the White Paper.
Whatever its justification in earlier days, peremptory challenge is now widely criticised as a distortion of the jury system, which should be based on the principle of random selection. The removal of peremptory challenge would help to maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the system. It seems wrong in principle that jurors should be removed without reasons being given. It is also unsatisfactory that, in cases with large numbers of defendants, the composition of the jury should be capable of being influenced so substantially.
We have therefore decided that it would be desirable to abolish peremptory challenge, and shall be including proposals with that effect in legislation which I hope to introduce next Session. Challenge for cause—that is the right of either party to seek the removal of a juror for stated reasons—would remain.

Mr. Kaufman: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enabling the House to extract from the Home Secretary today what he communicated to the press yesterday. It is becoming more and more offensive that Government decisions are being communicated to everyone but those in the House, and that when they are communicated to the House they are communicated only grudgingly when we attempt to obtain answers through you, Mr. Speaker.
Is it true that on abolition of jury trial fraud cases the Government have decided to accept the advice of the Opposition, of many Conservative Members and of many outside observers? The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the White Paper on criminal justice, but curiously his eye did not stray to paragraph 38, which reads:
As a first step towards assisting Parliament to resolve the issues, the Director of Public Prosecutions is now monitoring the use of peremptory challenge and prosecution stand-by in cases presented by him. From I April, this survey will be extended to all cases tried in the Crown Court in those areas … in which the Crown Prosecution Service is in operation.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the paragraph continues:
The figures thus gathered will be available to inform debate when the Criminal Justice Bill is before Parliament.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the outcome of the survey is available and whether it was available to the Cabinet Committee which decided to abolish the right of peremptory jury challenge, bearing in mind that he made it clear that the outcome of the survey was crucial to a decision upon it? What are the conclusions of the survey, and when will the survey and the findings be made available to the House?
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government intend to retain the right of challenge for cause. Is he not aware—this has been said by a number of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) — that the abolition of peremptory challenge will turn challenge for cause into a growth industry in the courts? Will he bear in mind that the abolition of this right will cause minorities especially to feel that they have been deprived of an important part of their armoury of defence?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to get into a froth about procedure. We told the House that we were considering the matter, and we set out the options in the White Paper. Yesterday the press began to get hold of some partly inaccurate accounts of our conclusions, and I agree that it is better to set the record straight. These are proposals that will come before the House and they will need to be debated at some length. There are a number of outstanding issues arising from the Roskill report, including the suggestion of a fraud trial tribunal, on which we are reaching or have just reached conclusions. I shall arrange for the House to be informed of our conclusions when they are ready.
The right hon. Gentleman quite fairly drew attention to the monitoring exercise, and the first results are available. The monitoring is continuing, and the results will be available for informed debate when the House considers the proposals that we set before it.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed a view about challenge for cause. I know of that opinion, as it has been expressed before in the House. I do not share it, but that theoretical supposition will no doubt be advanced when the House debates the proposals.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although many of us strongly support the maintenance of the jury system as embodying the right to trial by 12 of one's fellow citizens, we do not necessarily believe that the defendant should have the right to decide who those 12 should be? I have defended a fair number of people in the criminal courts, and would ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is possible to manipulate the system by attempting to obtain a jury that the defendant believes is favourable to his case. There is much argument in favour of what my right hon. Friend proposes.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. In the White Paper, we quote a famous sentence from Blackstone, who defended the principle of peremptory challenge and who pointed out how necessary it was that
a prisoner (when put to defend his life) should have a good opinion of his jury".
That shows how things have moved on. No defendant is now put to defend his life.

Mr. James Wallace: Does not the Home Secretary accept that the right to peremptory challenge allows a fair and equal chance to both the prosecution and the defence? In those cases where jury vetting will be allowed, will the right to peremptory challenge be closed to the defence? Do the Government intend to introduce this provision north of the border, where there is a distinct and separate code of criminal law?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has legitimately drawn attention to the prosecution's right of stand-by. We shall


have to look at that, and limit it in the light of the proposal that I have announced. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that questions of national security can be at stake, and I am discussing them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I had better let the hon. Gentleman know about Scotland.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of sensible people will warmly welcome the Government's decision?. Peremptory challenges have been increasingly and systematically used to obtain a jury that is biased towards acquittal. That handicaps the police and is unfair to the public, who want to be protected from violent crime.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I think that he was perhaps the first to draw this subject to the attention of the House. Incidentally, in response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I should say that this proposal does not cover Scotland.

Mr. Bruce Millan: In a sense, the Home Secretary has just answered my question. Is it not absurd that this change should be made in one part of the United Kingdom but not in another? How can it be justified in England? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position in Scotland dates only from 1980 and from legislation introduced by the present Government which was defended by Scottish Office Ministers at the time? There has been no complaint in Scotland about the situation, so why should this right be removed from England?

Mr. Hurd: The answer is that Scottish Members in all parts of the House constantly remind me that the Scots have a different legal system of which they are proud.

Mr. David Ashby: We often hear phrases salt as "I believe", "It is my belief" or "It is my opinion", but what research or hard evidence is there to justify altering a system that has been in existence for centuries? We want to know: we need evidence. What evidence has my right hon. Friend got?

Mr. Hurd: The system that my hon. Friend says has been in existence for centuries has also been progressively reduced during. That time, for the reasons that I have already outlined Lord Roskill's report makes a powerful and conclusive argument against the principle of the system. The results of the monitoring will be available when the House discusses the issue. But, on grounds of principle I believe that in 1986 the proposal that we are making will restore the effectiveness and integrity of the jury system.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Will the Home Secretary now answer his hon. Friend's question? There is no published material. What evidence does the Home Secretary have that the right of peremptory challenge has been abused or has led to wrong decisions, especially when one bears in mind that more than 50 per cent. of acquittals in the Crown court are made on the direction of the judge? Would not the Home Secretary be bette advised to imporve resources so that we have quicker trials rather than set about eroding the rights of defendants?

Mr. Hurd: I do not see how the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr.Kilroy-Silk) can say that there is

no published material when we have the critique, the Roskill report, and the White Paper. Issues are powerfully discussed there in terms of principle. I have answered twice questions about the monitoring exercise. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about delays in trials. He will know about the steps—perhaps overdue— that we are taking, to improve the speed of justice.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people do not have much faith in the present jury system? The acquittal rate is far too high. At Snaresbrook it is 58—2 per cent. and at Leicester it is 50—5 per cent. Does my right hon. Friend accept that something had to be done to get more properly representative juries? His announcement will be welcome and will reinforce the view that a jury can work properly if the right kind of people are on it.

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is widespread distrust of the jury system, if that was the phrase he used. On the whole, people are deeply and rightly attached to the jury system, but they are worried about what they increasingly see as a distortion of the type that he spoke about. I agree with him that we ought to remove the distortion.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I recommend to the Home Secretary that he read the reports of the debates leading to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The arguments that the Home Secretary is adducing now are precisely the arguments that his colleagues who are now responsible for legal matters in Scotland were rejecting at that time. Is he not aware, has nobody told him, that in 1980 his Government sought to reduce the number of challenges in Scotland from five to one? In Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, Government Back Benchers tabled and carried an amendment to increase the number of challenges from one to three. The arguments that the Home Secretary is advancing about peremptory challenges are valid in any part of the United Kingdom. A jury is a jury and a challenge is a challenge.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member simply underlines one of the points that I made—that this procedure has been steadily and progressively reduced on both sides of the border. He gave an illustration from Scotland, and the time has come to move a further step down that road.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who work in the criminal justice system welcome his announcement, especially as it applies to multi-handed trials? It is all too evident that in such trials it is possible to engineer distortions. Does he also agree that, while it is one thing to make the system work more effectively, it is something else fundamentally to alter the system by withdrawing the right to jury trial from some defendants in certain circumstances?

Mr. Hurd: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's second point. I am grateful for his observations on it. Both Houses of Parliament will take and indeed seek a long time to discuss this proposal and the other proposals that will be put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary return to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby) who asked why this proposal was being made now? In part, may it not be because of ministerial chagrin and sour grapes over Brian Raymond's successful challenge to three


jury persons during the trial of Clive Ponting? Would it not be a good thing for the Home Office to turn its attention to the Director of Public Prosecutions whose record on official secrets, with Bothwell and the Cyprus spy trial, is about equal to that of the England cricket team?

Mr. Hurd: I am not aware of the challenge in the case mentioned by the hon. Member. The proposal that we are putting forward is the result of a good deal of thought and study and a good deal of public discussion. That discussion has to go forward to its focus from the stage that it has now reached following the publication of the White Paper. That focus will be discussed in both Houses.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accept that the majority of those who practise in the criminal courts think that the practice of peremptory challenge has given rise to wide abuse? Does he also accept that it cannot be right to adjust the composition of a jury because a defendant—or more than one defendant—does not like red-headed men, or people with black faces, or people who read the Daily Telegraph? To adjust juries on that kind of ground is simply nonsense.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The point of the jury system and the reason why it retains public confidence is that it is based on random selection. Juries are not tailored for a particular trial or for a particular defendant. The institution of peremptory challenge was deliberately introduced to weight the system at a time when, in other respects, the jury system seemed to be weighted against the defendant — when, for example a defendant who might have been very poorly educated was on trial for his life. That was the basic thinking behind peremptory challenge, but it no longer applies.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Home Secretary tell the House what hard evidence was available to the Government when they took this decision? How does he reconcile extolling the virtues of monitoring what is happening with paragraph 38 of the White Paper? I understand that monitoring is to continue. How could the Government reach a decision when evidence was not available to them upon which to reach that decision?
Secondly, how does the Home Secretary reconcile the different system that is now proposed for England and Wales with the Scottish system? There was a Government proposal in 1980 to reduce peremptory challenge in Scotland to one. However, an amendment was moved by the present Solicitor-General for Scotland to increase that number to three, and it was accepted by the then Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. Hurd: The question, to my mind, is to a large extent one of principle, and it is so argued in the White Paper to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. When the House debates the matter, it will have before it not only the arguments of principle, which I have used today and which Lord Roskill uses in his report, but the results of the monitoring exercise that is mentioned in the White Paper. That is a perfectly fair balance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Scottish colleagues will be able to advance their arguments about Scotland. We believe that in England and Wales the time has come to carry to a logical conclusion what has been a gradual process—the progressive reduction of this technique.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, but I shall allow two more questions.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is considering the composition of juries in England and Wales — he will have noted the comments about Scotland — will he bear in mind the substantial differences between English and Scottish law, not the least of which is the matter of corroboration?

Mr. Hurd: I am always very careful not to trespass upon Scottish law, precisely because I find that one subject leads to another. I find that the kind of simple comparisons that are advanced by the other side fall to pieces when the connecting circumstances are analysed.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the system of peremptory challenge was first introduced the structure of juries was very different, in that to be eligible for jury service one had to be a householder or landowner? That system has now been completely changed, and the composition of juries is much fairer. Apart from certain restrictions relating to age, every adult elector is eligible to serve on a jury. Therefore, the randomness of choice for jury service is much, much wider and fairer.
Does my right hon. Friend not think it strange that those who quite rightly espouse the jury system should seek to defend the continuation of the right to peremptory challenge which on occasion can only call into doubt the integrity of the jury system, to the detriment of everyone, not least defendants?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. When a countryman living in Oxfordshire went to Oxford to stand trial for stealing a lamb, for which he might have been hanged or transported, there would have been a case for the kind of system that we now have; but for the reason that my hon. Friend gave, and others, I do not think that such a case exists now.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind those hon Members whom I have been unable to call today that if they put down questions to the Home Office tomorrow they will come up on 24 July, which is just before the recess.

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether through you, Mr. Speaker, I can get some clarification about the Scottish position. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has said that the removal of the right to peremptory challenge by the defence will not apply in Scotland. I am anxious to establish the position, because I understand from responsible members of the press that the Scottish Office, at a briefing this morning, said that it would apply. I have been unable to get any satisfactory reply from the Scottish Office, despite several telephone calls in the past hour or so. If the Home Secretary is clear that the new procedure will not apply to Scotland, it would be helpful to get it clearly and firmly on the record.

Mr. Hurd: I do not wish to compound the confusion, but I shall readily let the hon. Member know about this as soon as possible.

Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hurd: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with one thing at a time.

Mr. Hurd: I am advised that my earlier remarks were correct.

Mr. Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have had three earlier answers—yes, no, and I do not know—which of them has the right hon. Gentleman corrected?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General is giving the Home Secretary different advice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help that. None of this is a matter for me. I do not know either.
Later—

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your rulings, as I always do, but I should like to raise a matter that is a proper point of order —

Mr. Speaker: Good.

Mr. Porter: —which is a nice change.
This afternoon, you restricted questions on a matter that affects the inalienable right of an Englishman to a proper jury trial. I can understand your irritation with some of the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends, who seem to think that a jury trial involves them in deciding what the verdict should be. Those of us who scratch a part-time precarious living in the law know rather more about it than others and might make some more sensible comments than have been made. If this topic arises again, could you extend the time to include those who have some knowledge, so that they might give their views?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me take one point of order at a time. It is always difficult for the Chair to decide who to call on any question. As for curtailing the question, it was a private notice question and I allowed it to run for more than 20 minutes, which is longer than I would allow for any normal question. I have already hinted to the hon. Gentleman that if he tables a question tomorrow it will come up during Home Office questions on 24 July, and I wish him good luck.

Mr. Porter: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but I meant that you had not called me.

Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Gentleman meant.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice. At Question Time today, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made a pointed remark about the Head of State of a friendly Government, by speaking about Waldheim's army group E. Mr. Waldheim was 21 when the last war began. I can fully understand that during the course of an election campaign there would be a strong case for a desperate Socialist opposition or Government in Vienna to mount a campaign such as this. I wonder whether, as that campaign has finished, it would be within your power, Mr. Speaker, to ask hon. Members not to

attack the Heads of friendly Governments when they are performing their duties and nothing has been proved against them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing out of order took place. I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said. We we do not in general refer in detrimental terms to friendly Heads of State. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says, but nothing out of order took place.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although one recognises the convention regarding Heads of State, I hope that you will bear in mind that the most grave allegations have been made about the present President of Austria. This was not just because there was an election campaign but because documentary evidence has been produced showing that Waldheim was involved in actions taken by the German army—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order that has nothing to do with me. If he raises a point of order that is to do with me, I shall endeavour to deal with it.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the serious allegations made against Mr. Waldheim because of his wartime activities, is it not to be expected that hon. Members, at least those on the Opposition Benches, will continue to raise this matter, which I hope will not be ruled out of order because Mr. Waldheim has, unfortunately, been elected President of Austria?
Later—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to explain further your ruling on comments about Heads of State? I am well aware of the rules of procedure that state that we are not allowed to comment unfavourably on judges, members of the other place and the royal family, and I accept that readily. But is it right for you to rule that we are not allowed to comment on Heads of State, friendly or unfriendly, properly chosen or not? It would be a grave curtailment of democracy if you so ruled, and a ruling which ihould be challenged.

Mr. James Lamond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder who will define whether Heads of State are friendly or otherwise so that we know how we may refer to them?

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, would it not be advisable for you to be fairly liberal in your interpretation of this rule? It would be very much to the disadvantage of hon. Members if they could not comment on the obscenities of a President Amin or on the inadequacies of a President Reagan.

Mr. Speaker: I refer the House to page 431 of "Erskine May" where it states:
Opprobrious reflections must not be cast in debate on sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent Commonwealth territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty, or their representatives in this country.
I am aware that the Austrian President has been the subject of some controversy. The House will recollect that


I said that there was nothing out of order in the question of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote methods of conservation of energy; and for connected purposes.
I hope that every hon. Member is fully aware that this is Energy Efficiency Year. The Government have stated that we can reduce our energy bill by 20 per cent., which represents £7 billion a year at current prices. They have launched their biggest ever advertising campaign to achieve that objective, although I find the slogan a little unwieldy.
One might ask why there is a need for my Bill. The answer is straightforward. First, if these objectives are to be achieved real investment will be needed. Secondly, there will need to be a long-term commitment to secure the greatest energy efficiency, rather than a one-off exercise, however enthusiastically it might be backed by Ministers of the day. Indeed, Ministers of the day are expending a fair amount of effort on that.
Continuous permanent investment in conservation and energy efficiency could yield savings, not just of 20 per cent., but of 35 to 40 per cent. Certainly that is the view of many independent experts. In other words, we are talking about an annual saving of between £12 billion and £15 billion. At present value that is substantially more than the value of our entire North sea oil production. That is the prize that we are chasing. We need a permanent body to set standards and to provide a continuous stimulus to achieve the benefits of such massive savings.
My Bill proposes to establish an energy efficiency board, which would lay down minimum standards to be applied to plants and buildings and would administer the Government's programme of grants and loans for conservation. If such a body existed now, it would have a direct effect, for example on the homes insulation grants programme, the Government's handling of which, I regret to say, is something of a scandal. In recent years the take-up has consistently fallen about 30 per cent. short of the Government's allocation, and instead of finding ways to improve the take-up, the Government have now chosen to cut it. My proposed board would ensure a full take-up, and it is easy to identify how that would have happened. I am sure that the board would have recommended raising the grant ceiling, which is too low, and extending the grant to cover cavity wall insulation and thermostats.
My Bill would also impose a statutory responsibiltiy on gas and electricity boards to promote energy efficiency. That was a matter of some controversy in Committee on the Gas Bill. The Minister said that it was unfair to impose such an obligation on Britsh Gas alone, although the Government have now conceded just that in another place. I agree with the Minister. That is why my Bill would apply that requirement to both gas and electricity suppliers. That would lead to the energy utilities being prepared to give grants for greater efficiency to their customers. It would optimise their existing supplies and avoid wasteful overcapacity, such as we have in Scotland, where the addition of Torness, which the South of Scotland electricity Board is anxious to bring on stream, will give us almost exactly twice the generating capacity in Scotland that we can conceivably need under any circumstances.
The energy efficiency board would also investigate the scope for greater efficiency in the public sector, where too


often public and Health Service buildings fall short of their energy efficiency potential. Part of the problem is that the annual budgeting process makes it easier for public agencies, such as health boards, ridiculous though this may be, to pay inflated energy bills from current expenditure than to invest in the capital required to cut those bills, sometimes within two years, and release that saving for patient care, instead of it going up the chimney in smoke as waste energy.
Hospitals are particularly appropriate for small-scale combined heat and power systems. In a typical case—this has happened in one or two hospitals — a conventional generator and existing technology —nothing fancy — can provide the same hot water and heating as a comparable gas central heating system, using the same amount of gas, and can further provide 25 per cent. of the hospital's electricity, effectively, free of charge. The energy efficiency board would also be able to evaluate alternative energy schemes, for example the installation of combined heat and power for a small housing development of 50 houses.
Hon. Members should be aware that comparisons of Britain's achievements in energy conservation, even since the oil-price rise, with those of our European Community neighbours are not favourable. An energy commission report showed that between 1979 and 1981 the use of energy by industry in the United Kingdom fell by 7·5 million tonnes of oil equivalent energy. Of that total, the commission study attributes about 67 per cent. to structural changes, 23 per cent. to reductions in the overall level of economic activity—they are both nice ways of saying "closures" — and only 9 per cent. to improved efficiency. That compares with France and West Germany, where the figures for improved efficiency were 71·2 per cent. and 84·4 per cent. respectively. Although the position has improved since then, it has not improved dramatically.
We need a much more ambitious programme to secure real and fantastic savings in energy. The consequences of such a programme would be to lower substantially our industrial costs and to help cut energy costs generally by lowering the costs of electricity. We would use what we have much more efficiently, thus lowering the real capital costs of the energy capability installed. Lower domestic heating costs would have an immediate social benefit, because they would lead to less dampness in homes and to less hypothermia, and they would reduce all the other tragic symptoms of fuel poverty.
The real benefit of a programme such as my Bill envisages is in jobs—tens of thousands of jobs. If the Government's target were achieved, which it will not be without the kinds of measures envisaged in my Bill, over 150,000 jobs would be quickly attainable. If we can achieve the long-term aim of 35 to 40 per cent. energy savings, we could be talking about over 300,000 new permanent jobs. These would be distributed throughout the country and many would be for engineers and building trade members. There would be some extra concentration in the north of England and Scotland, where, with the right stimulus, take-up would be greater, and where more of the relevant engineering industries are concentrated. Intensive effort is sure to lead to advances in technology, and that in turn will give us valuable export opportunities.
Early-day motion 1078 on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) calls for a debate in the House on energy

efficiency. I agree. This is a matter of enormous potential to the United Kingdom which is nothing like being taken advantage of. One way to secure that would be to give my Bill a First Reading today and to allow time for a Second Reading as soon as possible.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak against the Bill because I am opposed to the setting up of further quangos to do what we are already capable of doing and what the Goverment are progressively doing. I see this as another means of establishing jobs for the boys and not, in fact, achieving very much.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that if Scotland went ahead with bringing on stream a nuclear generating power we would have twice the generating capacity that Scotland needs. He and the House know fulll well that Scotland has for decades generated more electricity than it needs. It has been the practice of Scotland to export electricity to England and Wales, and it has done so successfully and profitably for a long time.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should be looking at combined heat and power. He will be aware that in Dundee we pioneered the combined heat and power schemes and that proposals are now in hand in other parts of the country to link up with a combined heat and power programme.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the oil price rise had not produced the kind of ambitious programme that it had elsewhere. However, like all people who make speeches, he is selective. He chose 1979 as being the year of the oil price rise, but everyone knows that the first oil price hike was in 1973–74 and then again in 1979.
The hon. Gentleman is introducing a Bill to set up a quango which we do not require. We already have the machinery and mechanism to carry out the programme that he hopes to achieve. The Government's record is substantially better in this area than that of the Government of the Lib-Lab pact. I mean "substantially" because it involves a vast sum of money. Therefore, I wish to oppose the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Malcolm Bruce accordingly presented a Bill to promote methods of conservation of energy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 October and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that, some little time ago, although an hon. Member who opposed a Bill did not seek to divide the House, he was obliged so to do. On this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and I said no, but no Division was called.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Tayside North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Lady said no, they did not say it within the hearing of the Chair. Certainly at this end of the Chamber it was not audible. The hon. Lady will know that I put the Question twice.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I said no twice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should make her objections more audible.

ESTIMATES DAY

3RD ALLOTTED DAY

ESTIMATES 1986–87

Class XV, Vote 2

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

Residential Care for the Elderly

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £4,290,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on supplementary pensions and allowances.—[Mr. Major.]

Mrs. Renee Short: I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for giving us some time this afternoon to debate this subject on an Estimates day. There is another debate to follow, so we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter fully.
As the House knows, we had only a few days' warning of the date of this debate, and I want to thank Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the printers for publishing our annual public expenditure report, which contains a section on this issue, in record time. I understand that that is available in the Vote Office now.
Under the supplementary benefit regulations the Department of Health and Social Security may pay benefit to elderly people living in residential care and nursing homes run by the private or voluntary sectors to meet the costs of their board and lodging. The cost of those payments has risen from £6 million in 1978 to an estimated £280 million in 1985. That is a considerable increase over seven years.
The size and speed of that increase in public expenditure is such that the Select Committee on Social Services thought it important to bring the matter urgently to the attention of the House. In the context of the total social security budget, £280 million is small—it accounts for less than 1 per cent. of all social security spending—but it is the equivalent of 10 per cent. of current spending on personal social services. Therefore, we are glad to have the opportunity to raise this matter in the House.
The Committee's concern is not that £280 million is an unreasonable amount to spend on supporting elderly people in need of residential care and without the means of paying for it themselves—for that reason I shall not be moving a reduction in the Vote — but that expenditure in this area has been quite out of the Department's control. That is the main burden of our criticism. The vast growth in spending is not the result of a well thought out policy decision and careful consultation; it has happened by accident and is the result of bureaucratic mismanagement.
I should have thought that, in spite of the fact that general managers have departed from the Elephant and Castle, there were enough people managing the various budgets of the Department to have kept an eye on this matter. However, it seems that they were not able to do so.
Before 1983 limits on the amount of supplementary benefit available for board and lodgings payment were determined locally and local DHSS offices had discretion to pay the full amount of a board and lodging charge, provided that it was not "reasonable" to expect the claimant to move to cheaper accommodation. "Reasonable" is the term used by the Department.
In November 1983, in the face of escalating costs, a new system was introduced. Locally determined maximum limits were set at a level reflecting the highest reasonable charge for suitable accommodation in the area. What was paid depended upon what private accommodation was available in the area. Therefore, there was a change in the direction of administration.
The introduction of maximum limits did nothing to control expenditure, which surged from £39 million in 1982 to £105 million in 1983 and to £190 million in 1984. Therefore, there were distinct and large increases. In 1985 expenditure had gone up to £280 million. Much of the increase was due to increased demand, but the average weekly cost per resident also jumped from less than £50 in 1982 to over £76 in 1983. Only a small part of the increase can be put down to inflation. Many homes simply increased their prices when they realised that the Department would pay the increased costs. It was a good jamboree for them. As the Committee reported, it is remarkable that the Department did not foresee that effect. It is surprising that a Government so committed to the operation of market forces did not realise that if one tells sellers that one is willing to pay more, prices will rise accordingly. That is what has happened.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To balance the argument that the hon. Lady is putting forward, I hope that she will agree that it is important to show the House that the figures the DHSS said it was prepared to meet were based on figures which were already in existence. I agree that they were at the higher rather than the lower level, but it is important to show that, in putting forward the recommendation, the DHSS based it on figures of cost already in existence. Perhaps some homes thought that if others were receiving higher amounts they should, too. However, the recommendation was based upon a realistic figure of what was already being charged at the better end of the market.

Mrs. Short: Yes. However, the effect of what was likely to happen was not monitored, and we are faced with this massive escalation in cost. It is considerable. I gave the total figures earlier.
In September 1984 the Department changed course again. Local limits were frozen and a review of residential care policy was announced. In April 1985, locally determined limits were abandoned in favour of national limits. Expenditure appears to have gone on rising to an estimated £280 million in 1985 and there is no evidence that it will be any less this year.
The number of residents in private and voluntary care supported by the supplementary benefit system increased from 7,000 in 1978 to 42,500 in 1984. That is a sixfold increase. In 1979, 14 per cent. of residents in private and voluntary homes for the elderly were supported by supplementary benefit. In 1984 the proportion of those supported had risen to 35 per cent., but the average weekly payment per resident had grown from £15·70 in 1978 to no less than £88 in 1984. That is a considerable increase.
The Committee tried to find out from the Department what had been achieved by that increase in cost: whether there had been a commensurate increase in the quality of the care provided. It was unable to tell us. The Committee also asked about the effect of introducing national limits: whether lower limits had reduced standards or whether any homes had been squeezed out of business. Again, the DHSS was able to tell us very little. It became clear, too, that the Department has not yet established how board and lodging payments will fit into the new structure of social security set out in the current Social Security Bill. The Minister told us in Committee that the present regime would "broadly continue". The Committee concluded:
It seems extraordinary that the DHSS should not have worked out how this increasingly important area of social security spending is going to fit into the scheme of things in only two years' time.
It is clear that more monitoring, more control and a better system of gathering information about the effects of the payments is needed.
Concern has been expressed about standards of care in private homes, especially the implications for residential care in the Department of Employment's recent White Paper "Building Businesses … not Barriers" which mooted some deregulation in that area. It is vital that standards of care are not sacrificed in the pursuit of profit. In fact, we want standards of care not only to be maintained but to be improved as increased payments are made. Ministers assured the Committee that there were no plans to remove controls, and the Minister for Social Security told us:
The Government is firmly determined to ensure the proper control of standards in this area.
It seems as if there has been a lack of communication between Government Departments, and that has resulted in the runaway increase in the total cost and the amounts paid.
There is a strong argument for the same rules and regulations to apply to all publicly financed homes, whether they are run by the private, public or voluntary sectors. As a condition of receiving funds from the Department, every home, whoever runs it, should be required to make much better information available to potential users or their families so that informed choice can be a reality. To maintain standards in all sectors the social services inspectorate should operate across the public-private divide. That is an important responsibility that the social services inspectorate should be exercising very strictly.
There should surely be a much greater degree of coordination at local level to ensure that public money is spent in the best interests of clients. If someone is entitled to or is receiving supplementary benefit for private or voluntary residential care and both the social services department and the client think that the same amount of money could provide a better service if differently used, perhaps they should be able to claim the money and use it as they think best.
Given the population structure, the need for residential care for the elderly is likely to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. Year by year the demand will increase. It is vital that we think carefully about how to use and develop all the elements of provision—whether public, voluntary or private—into a coherent policy of social care for the elderly who require it so that we have a good


meshing of the different types of care provided and standards are comparable across the frontiers of the three types of care.
That policy must ensure that the resources available can be transferred from one area of government to another, according to the needs of the individual. That is why we call attention in this short debate to our concern about what is happening now and to the potential problem for the immediate future unless proper control is exercised by the Department. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what control will be exercised.

Sir David Price: As a member of the Select Committee I wish to say a few words in support of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). I nearly said "my hon. Friend" because on our Select Committee we regard each other as hon. Friends even if from time to time we may have a slight difference of opinion as is human. I can assure the House that the Committee was unanimous in everything we recommended in the report.
In developing the themes of our report I shall detain the House for a short time on four aspects. The first is to support what the hon. Lady has said and to draw the House's attention to the rapid increase in the number of payments of benefit to people living in residential care and nursing homes run by the private and voluntary sectors. In my judgment, it raises a number of important questions about the past, the present and, even more importantly, the future provision for our elderly citizens.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East read from paragraph 70 of the report. I should like to draw the House's attention to the numbers rather than to the money. We talk about there being 7,000 beneficiaries in private rest homes in 1978. By 1984 the figure had risen to 42,500. As a proportion, in 1979, 14 per cent. of the residents in private and voluntary homes were being supported through the Department of Health and Social Security. By 1984 that proportion had risen to 35 per cent. I have reason to suppose that today it is nearer 50 per cent. That raises considerable issues for the House to consider.
I am satisfied that what we say in paragraph 72—
Much of the increase in expenditure can be explained by a growth in demand"—
is correct. That growth in demand is certain to continue. Again, I hope that the House takes that firmly on board. Let me give the House some figures of my own to illustrate the inevitability of that increase in demand. Let us take the demographic changes expected between 1985 and the end of the century, only 15 years hence. The percentage of people of pensionable age 65 or 60 — when men and women receive their respective pensions—will drop from 18·2 of the population in 1985 to 17·8. However, the percentage who are 75 or older will increase from 6.4 to 7·1. In absolute numbers, that is an increase of nearly half a million people.
We all know people in their 80s or even in their 90s who are more robust than many of us sitting in the Chamber, but as a general planning concept it is reasonable to accept that the older people get, the more dependent they are. Therefore, that change in the demography of elderly people is a point that the House has to take firmly on board in relation to our report.
One must conclude that the provision that we are talking about will need to increase rather than diminish. Therefore, I trust that, the House will: accept our conclusion in the Select Committee;
Given the increasing: number of elderly people, and particularly of the very old, the demand for residential care and for board and lodging.payments is bound to continue to grow for many years to come.
My second point is about the qualitative aspects of the current arrangements.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman may raise this matter on his other points, but I thought that he would do so on the first point when he talked about the numbers involved, the sums involved, and, most important, the trend. Ealier in hid speech he raised the significant policy issue about the role of the DHSS. That applies to students—should the DHSS be paying money to students, or Should that be for the Department of Education and Science? In his Vilietlgoints, will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is approprjate for the DHSS to be paying that sort of money,or whether that should be channelled from: the DHSS budget to the local authorities?

Sir David Price: I can assure the hon Gentleman, whose knowledge is extensive and for whom I have the greatest respect, that that is the fourth aspect that I shall touch on. If he will forgive me, I wish to develop my points in my own sequence.
I was dealing with the qualitative aspect of current arrangements. I should like to ask these questions. Are the current levels of payment sufficient to ensure a proper standard of provision? That ties up with the next point that I wish to make. Should there be,regional if not local variations? The evidence that I. have from Hampshire suggests that costs vary, particularly when it comes to the variation in housing costs. Are we making sufficient provision for the very dependent elderly ,people? In our report we welcomed ,the Government's decision to introduce a higher rate for very dependent elderly people from 28 July. We congratulated the Government on that. But is that the end of the stoty?,Should we be more sensitive in variations of rate?` We know the reality as people get frailer and become more dependent.
Then there is the Whole question of the uneven treatment of disabled and handicapped people. We drew attention to that in our report. Hon. Members who are present, all of whom understand those matters, know that there is a big difference between the financial treatment of similarly disabled people, according to the' age at which one becomes disabled.
Another aspect of the matter 'about which I feel strongly, is, the treatment of attendance allowance as income in the assessment of supplementary benefit. I have been campaigning for many years on that matter. I feel extremely strongly that attendance Allowance should never be treated as income. We won the that with the Treasury. We got it to accept that attendance allowance should be tax free, just like mobility allowance. Those are two allowances that are nothing to do with income. They are to do with helping people who are severely handicapped to live with their handicap. I believe that these allowances are in a different' category from.normal income support. I have argued the case in the House for many years. I regard what is now happening as a retreat. from what I thought was territory that we had conquered for keeps, but one knows that in life no victory is ever complete.
Thirdly, I draw the House's attention to the setting and maintaining of standards in private rest homes and nursing homes. I am sure that the whole House agrees that we must weed out the cowboys. We have yet to see the fully beneficial effects of the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984. We welcomed the reassurances of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security when they gave evidence to us. They were absolutely clear. Are the levels of payments, particularly in the more expensive parts of the country, sufficient to support those purposes? I wonder whether there may be a more positive role for the DHSS as inspectors rather than local authorities, not purely in a policing and monitoring sense, but in a positive sense, similar to the role of HM I in schools. I leave my right hon. and hon. Friends with the thought that there might be a constructive as well as a purely monitoring role for this Department.
Finally, 1 should like to raise the wider aspect of how the provision in private rest homes that we are discussing today ties up with all the other aspects of our national provision for the elderly. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East drew attention to the matter too. We said in paragraph 75 of our report:
A clear national policy for the support of the elderly inside and outside residential care must be devised.
It is my personal view that we cannot have too wide a spectrum of arrangements for caring for the elderly because every elderly person is an individual. In every family circle, every person is different. It seems to be a mark of an advanced and generous society to have as close to infinite a range of arrangements as we can obtain. I do not believe that there is any uniquely correct method of provision. On the contrary, I invite the Government to take the lead from St. John's gospel, where we read:
In my Father's house are many mansions.
I want to see many mansions. My own experience, and my own gut instinct, tells me that the preferred mansion of most elderly people, if not all, is their own home.
Therefore, in seeking
A clear national policy for the support of the elderly",
I have a bias in favour of care in the community as against institutionalised care, whether public or private. In my judgment, all current financial arrangements favour institutionalised care. My plea to the Government is to redirect our financial arrangements so that the provision between institutionalised care and care in the community is at least neutral. If I carry the House with me so far, my plea must mean more public money in support of care in the community where most of the care happens today. Put another way, I ask the Government to support personal choice for the dependent elderly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on their work as members of the Select Committee on Social Services. The Committee's fourth report is a valuable document and I look forward to studying the other aspects of the report later.
It is correct that in today's debate we should examine the sections of the report which deal with private and voluntary residential care for the elderly. I believe that expansion is not a bad thing, but since 1980 there has been

a disturbing element of unplanned growth. There is a difference between necessary expansion and the way that that growth has taken place. Indeed, the Government would probably admit—privately, if not publicly—that that is what has happened. They have had to respond and react to events, and they have responded — unwittingly and without any design intended—in a way that has compounded the problem.
I am mystified as to why the Government decided to extend supplementary benefit to residential care against the long-established tradition of local authorities providing part III accommodation. I was more closely involved in the 1983 decision to impose categories and local ceilings. The inevitable consequence was that expenditure spiralled. Paragraph 72 of the Select Committee report states:
In other words, landlords raised their prices to meet the limits. It is easy to speak with hindsight, but it does seem remarkable that the DHSS did not foresee what would happen.
Many of those landlords must have seen the Government coming. The Government can be charged with having presented themselves as a soft target.

Mr. Frank Field: They were told that.

Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) says, they were told so.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I was tempted to intervene during the speech of the hon . Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) earlier on this point. One point which has not been recognised in what has undoubtedly been an intractable and difficult area of policy for many years is that the previous regulations, which were replaced in 1983, contained a completely open-ended provision for charges to be met without limit where it was unreasonable to expect the claimant to move. The fact that that totally open-ended provision was exploited by many organisations, and was advertised freely, led us to make the changes. To suggest that a provision of a tighter variety was replaced by the present provision is an over-simplified reading of the regulation.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with the Minister that this is a complicated area of policy. However, he should have looked twice before he authorised the new regulations. I hold no great brief for those who criticise private residential homes, as there are people on the make who make money unscrupulously, However, the vast majority — certainly in my part of the country — are not so minded. It is inevitable that landlords, when they see that the local limit is higher than their charges, will charge more for the better service that they believe they are providing. They consider that it costs more money to provide the better service.

Mr. Frank Field: The Government would have been wiser to keep the existing regulations to meet charges, provided that they were not unreasonable. The unscrupulous landlords, who have exploited the system, would not have been told at what level they could fleece taxpayers.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It may have been necessary to change the definition of what was reasonable or unreasonable at the time. However, matters could have been controlled in a more sensible way.
When the system was changed again, by categorising the limits by handicap, a host of problems resulted. For example, in many cases, limits turned out to be inadequate and we had to resort to transitional protection. There is now an exceptional hardship category and there is the problem of the elderly higher rate which is payable only if people are disabled before retirement age. Whenever the Government try to change and ameliorate the system, they compound the problem.
Demand has continued to increase. In his evidence to the Select Committee the Minister referred to some possible future problems. However, I am worried about the present trends. In his evidence, the Minister said:
This demographic trend produces foreseeable very, very large increases in demands on what is currently social security expenditure, of a kind which … the Government concluded we could not confidently be sure that they could be sustained into the next century.
That statement together with the fact that the Government have had the benefit of the joint working party report published in 1985 and the Ernst and Whinney report published in 1986, must lead us to expect a clear policy statement of the Government's intentions. The need for that statement is reinforced by the fact that the Social Security Bill is about to complete its final stages. The Select Committee is correct to state that it is wrong for the Government to leave this area untouched and for the Minister to hide behind a statement that the regulations provide enough flexibility to cope with the present position. The Minister did not make it clear that if he wanted to change the position and if the need for substantial change arose, he would be able to do that under the Social Security Bill. In the aftermath of the important Select Committee report the House should have a clear answer from the Government on that point.
I am worried about several points. I believe that choice is a good thing. The hon. Member for Eastleigh alluded to that point in his remarks. However, I am worried that the direction of board and lodging payments and residential care runs counter to the Government's policy on community care. Local authorities are short of finance, and it is easier for prospective applicants to opt for residential care even if their needs do not show that that is necessary. There is now almost a financial incentive to opt for residential care, and that is compounded by the fact that domiciliary support is more difficult to come by these days. Although the element of choice may be present in theory, in practice it is disappearing.
The proposal cannot be an efficient use of public money because there is no assessment of need. The test for residential provision is simply one of supplementary benefit, not of a level of dependency. That cannot be an efficient and sensible use of public money.
I also believe that the system of funding is inequitable. Within the disregards operated by local authorities, there is a capital disregard level of £1,200 before they start charging. We know that the DHSS, under the supplementary benefit regulations, has a capital disregard of £3,000. How can that be fair? The weekly personal allowance that local authority part III accommodation claimants receive is £7·75. The DHSS personal weekly allowance for people in the same homes is £9·05 per week. The funding is inequitable. If the Government are to

continue the system, that inequity must be redressed. The Government must also consider the implications for the home care and meals on wheels services.
The Government have three choices, and these were referred to in the joint working party report. The first is that all the charges should be put on the system of supplementary benefit for residential care. That would appear to be the way that the Government are drifting. I use that word advisedly because they are not making a positive decision to move in that direction. Secondly, the whole charge could be put on the local authority.
Thirdly—I hope that the Government will give active consideration to this—the board element could be paid by the DHSS, which has the machinery to do so efficiently within reason, and the care needs could be assessed by the local authority. I believe that that is the most fruitful way forward. There are real problems about assessment, and the system of assessment must be extended. There are also real problems about charges. As the Ernst and Whinney report pointed out, the market is sensitive to the DHSS limits and claimants face widely differing circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that the general direction that I have described is the one that the Government should take. I hope that they will act quickly.

Mr. Michael Meacher: First, I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and to other members of the Select Committee on Social Services—I recognise the consensus of the Select Committee — for drawing attention in the fourth report to the serious and disturbing problems becoming increasingly apparent in private and voluntary care provision for the elderly as a result of the Government's differential approach to funding between the public and private sectors. I am not sure that I can follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) with a biblical reference, as I omitted to look one up before the debate, but I liked his line about the redirecting of money. I would go further than making it neutral as between residential and community care, but the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point.
I strongly endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East has said. She eloquently described the sharp zig-zags of Government policy in the past six years as they have twisted and turned from one device to another in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable—that is, to use public money to provide a major boost for the local commercial market, while at the same time meeting need and containing public expenditure. In my view it has always been clear—the history of the past six years has conclusively shown this to be so that those are fundamentally incompatible objectives. Since 1980 the Government have shifted from one extreme to the other, with policy reversals cancelling previous initiatives, but they seem unable or unwilling to learn the basic lesson that no amount of tinkering with the system can make the private sector the main provider of services, while at the same time ensuring that limited residential provision is strictly allocated to meet priorities of need.
We believe that the Government's fundamental philosophy and approach are at fault. Contradictions show through at every stage of policy evaluation in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out — it is important to clarify the Minister's reference to this—in


1980 the Government permitted supplementary benefit board and lodging allowances to be paid at a rate commensurate with local residential charges, with power to pay more in particular circumstances. There was no capped limit, but a measure of discretion, and local officers are perhaps best placed to exercise that discretion while ensuring that local charges are properly met. When that discretion became more widely exercised, the Government's overall commitment to limiting expenditure led them to impose a ceiling on the amount that could be paid and to introduce local variations. Because they did not want any forced removals from homes, the new level in each locality corresponded to the highest reasonable charges in that locality.
That compromise in November 1983 produced the worst of all possible worlds. Many proprietors levelled up their charges to the local limits and many new homes were opened as people who did not necessarily have any caring background or experience saw the commercial potential of doing so. At the same time, many local authorities stopped sponsoring residence in the private sector. Some withdrew from existing sponsorships and some even planned to sell off complete local authority premises to private owners. As if all those no doubt unintended consequences were not enough, expenditure on board and lodging in private homes rose nearly fivefold in two years to £190 million in 1984.
Not before time, in April 1985, the Government introduced a new system abolishing local limits and re-establishing national limits, but this time differentiating according to age and the type of disability of the claimant. It quickly became clear, however, that there were significant drawbacks inherent in the new system. The limits were set too low for certain types of care, especially care for the more dependent elderly people and for multipally handicapped young people. The limits were set on a national basis without any regard for local or regional variations in cost, thus preventing local authorities from paying for the extra care needs of some elderly claimants through topping-up arrangements and also discriminating against elderly people who became physically disabled after pension age.
The Government implicitly acknowledged the validity of those criticisms in their latest amendment to the regulations last month, which proposed a higher limit for Greater London and for severely dependent elderly people. Although that change is welcome, it falls well short of meeting the criticisms. For example, the Ernst and Whinney report shows that, although average gross unit costs in the private sector are £117 per place per week, they cover a huge range from £36 to £247 per week. To compress that range into a single national limit, albeit with a variation for Greater London, does not, and cannot begin to, reflect local economic realities. More fundamentally, none of the recent adjustments in any way mitigates what I regard as the real case against the Government's general policy of discriminating in favour of the private sector.
First, it is profoundly wrong that huge public subsidies are now provided for private residential care without any assessment of residential need in terms of physical or mental frailty. Dependency is not a criterion for entry in the private sector. As has been pointed out, public money will be spent on people whose need for residential care may be minimal, provided that they qualify for supplementary benefit. That is not just wrong in terms of priorities. It is

also highly wasteful. The efficient use of public money requires assessment whether residential care is really needed or whether support systems can be provided to keep the person functioning within the community.
Secondly, it is ludicrous that while local authorities are forced to budget within overtight constraints because of rate support grant cuts and rates penalties, including cuts in community care initiatives, public money is being sucked into private residential alternatives on a demand-led basis. It is absurd that while local authority development of community care is completely hamstrung for lack of funds, private residential provision for the elderly has doubled since 1979 and supplementary benefit payments for people in such accommodation have increased nearly twentyfold.
Most significant of all, when public expenditure is tight, it is a grotesque misallocation of funding that the proportion of private residents financed through supplementary benefit has nearly trebled since 1979 to more than 40 per cent. now. In terms of the Government's supposed policy for the family, this has the ironic effect not just of making it easier for families to dump their relatives in homes, but of providing a financial incentive for them to do so because arranging and paying for domiciliary support is so much more difficult.
Thirdly, there is inequity in funding between the private and public sectors. I shall not make much of this point, but, for example, the capital disregard for residents in the private and voluntary sectors receiving supplementary benefit is fixed at £3,000 whereas local authorities can disregard only £1,200 before charging.
Fourthly—this is a more substantive point—Ministers constantly defend the private sector as reflecting greater individual choice. I am all in favour of choice in principle, but in fact the huge mushrooming of subsidies for the private sector at the expense of local authorities has diminished overall choice for the elderly.
In 1984 expenditure per head of population aged 75 and over on local authority home care services was only 79 per cent.—less than four-fifths of its level in 1978–79. For meals on wheels it was only 85 per cent.
That suggests that the choice has been between a well-funded and easy-to-obtain private residential place, and a restricted and hard-to-obtain home help service. I doubt whether that is in accordance with the priorities of many hon. Members. It is estimated that it will cost more than £300 million net to bring those services back to their 1978–79 level. It is difficult not to see the shortfall as having been badly aggravated by increases in supplementary benefit payments to private residents, over the same period, of £184 million.
Those are all major reasons why we believe that the whole thrust of the Government's residential care policies is wrong-headed and inefficient and actually distorts their own declared community care objectives. Even within the parameters of the Government's own policy framework —which we do not accept—the present policies have serious defects which the Government must address before Parliament votes to continue the current funding arrangements. After all, that is the purpose of a debate on the Estimates.

Mr. Frank Field: I have followed with interest my hon. Friend's comprehensive attack on the development of Government policy. As we are unlikely to convince the Government tonight, can we register the points of


agreement? Is my hon. Friend saying that there is support on both sides of the House for a change that will ensure that people will not have access to the private sector and pick up supplementary benefit payments unless they are deemed necessary for that service by the local authority?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend, whom I did not consult about the preparation of my speech, has anticipated one of the points that I intended to make. I very much agree with him and endorse what he said, and shall comment more fully towards the end of my speech.
The most obvious example of serious defects in the Government's policy is the fact that the care of all supplementary benefit funded residents — there are 42,000 according to a recent parliamentary answer on 10 February—is put in jeopardy if the home owner decides to increase the fees, as he is entitled to do. Indeed, there is now some evidence of evictions.
I wish to quote from the extremely good report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations that was published last year, and to that extent is slightly out of date. It refers to the report of Counsel and Care for the Elderly "Every solution creates a problem" — an interesting title and not entirely inaccurate in this context—and gives the example of a 93-year old woman whose only relatives are distant cousins and who is paying her own fees of £250 a week in a small nursing home. The home informed the family that it would evict her if its full fees were not met by a fixed date. A charity made a holding grant of £400 to give the family a small breathing space. Applications were made to other funds, but the outcome has yet to be decided. I hope that it is decided satisfactorily, but I doubt whether such a precarious provision could last indefinitely.
Another example from a concerned Hampshire social worker showed that one home had increased its fees from £150 to £175 a week and had told the elderly resident on supplementary benefit that she would have to leave if she could not make up the difference. Relatives have stepped into the breach for the time being, but the situation cannot last indefinitely. That is a serious problem. I fear that there will soon be reported evictions, if they have not already occurred.
The quality of life of residents may be markedly affected if home owners, who probably do not wish to evict residents, decide to cut facilities rather than increase fees. In addition, the turnover in ownership of homes may sharply increase. I note that in Norfolk, for example, a fifth of private homes either closed or changed hands during one year recently. A different regime may profoundly alter the suitability of a home for its residents.
A rather more paradoxical result of current policies is that there is clear evidence that they are defeating their own purposes. Most owners of private homes have responded to the new supplementary benefit limits by refusing to admit supplementary benefit claimants. The NCVO reports that a spokesperson for the Registered Nursing Homes Association in Surrey said that since the limit was introduced there had been no admissions of people on supplementary benefit into nursing homes in the south-west. Before the limit it had a policy of admitting 50 per cent. DHSS-funded patients, but it says that it can now no longer afford to do so.
The NCVO report, in another example, showed that an investigation carried out by the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority revealed similar results, in that at the end of July 1985, 59 elderly patients who had previously been discharged to private nursing or residential care homes were being kept in hospital because they could not afford to pay the difference between the charges and the amount available through supplementary benefit.
It is a ludicrous position where, according to Counsel and Care for the Elderly, up to one third of the 50,400 elderly people in hospital geriatric wards want to leave, are fit to do so, but cannot afford nursing home care. Few private nursing homes charge less than £220 a week, compared with the latest limit for nursing home care of the elderly of £180. It leaves a weekly deficit for the patient or family of at least £40 or £50 a week, and most cannot find that sort of money. It is ludicrous to have such a policy when the cost borne by the state for a bed in a London geriatric ward is £300 to £320 a week, and when for an acute bed for patients who require more intensive nursing, the cost can be as much as £400 to £500 a week.
Another serious weakness in the Government's financial framework is that there is no funding for very short-stay care. The DHSS will not, for example, fund a weekend stay for severely dependent elderly relatives, even though the families caring for them often reach a crisis point and can continue, as we all wish them to do, only if respite care is covered in an emergency.
For all those reasons, the Opposition are highly critical of the morass of Government policy in which they are currently bogged down. Even within the Government's own terms of reference, which I have said we do not accept, it is self-defeating. Presumably even the Government are disturbed that the consequence of their policies on private homes is to force many of them into making economies in the standards of care provided, to refuse to admit elderly people who are dependent on supplementary benefit, to close high-cost homes—even if they are good — and to restrict plans for new development.
Even within their own policy framework the Government have so far failed to implement several of the recommendations of the joint central and local government working party report published last year. If the Government are determined to make private care a spearhead of their provision—that is their policy, not ours — they should set a negotiated rate that is less inflexible than a single national limit, even with the variant for central London. They should pay for pensioners who are mentally ill or physically disabled at the same rate as they pay for such persons under pension age. They should pay for people with multiple handicaps in residential homes at the same rate as they pay for similar levels of care in nursing homes. They should provide for topping up by local authorities for residents requiring high levels of care. They should pay for elderly people taken into residential care for short stays and at short notice to provide a break for carers under pressure.
All that is to remedy deficiencies in the application of current Government policy. Our real objection is that the policies are thoroughly misguided at root. Our policy involves a radical change of course. We believe, as a fundamental axiom, that care provision for the elderly


should be determined by need and not by personal income or the adventitious availability of supplementary benefit. That has several implications.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he supports the continued growth of private sector residential care for the elderly, or whether he wishes to see it shut down?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady listens to my remaining remarks, which will be brief, I think that she will hear the answer to that question. I recognise that it cannot be closed down. A large number of elderly people are in the private sector. However, I believe that it should not expand. For those who enter in future, I believe that access should be on the basis of need, where possible, and not on the basis of personal income, which tends to restrict it to the better off. Standards of supervision and inspection should be tighter.
Community care plans should be developed, based on the systematic identification of need, both among the elderly and other dependent groups in the community. Where access is determined by need, the public sector should be able to expand both residential and domiciliary care free of the present massive and artificial juggernaut of financial controls that inhibit the development of a rational and efficient system of community care.
Local authorities' assessment arrangements for admission to their own homes—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—should he extended to those claiming supplementary benefit board and lodging allowance for residential care in private homes. Only those genuinely in need of residential care would receive support. Savings could be used to finance alternative and more effective forms of community care.
Closer inspection and supervision of private homes is necessary to improve the quality of those that are substandard, to prevent abuses, skimped provision or actual maltreatment— I readily agree that this occurs in a small minority of cases—and to ensure that there is no excess profit rate per resident. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) intervened on that earlier.
There needs to be a fundamental redirecting of care. The Government's present policies are not targeted on need, they are a wasteful and inefficient distortion of the true function of supplementary benefit, and even within their own right they are counter-productive, because of public expenditure cuts, in excluding many elderly people for whom the provision is intended. The Government's obsession with the privatisation of care has turned out to be as defective and objectionable as the Fowler review's disastrous attempt to privatise welfare generally. The position must be reversed. It will be soon when the Government are overturned.

Mr. Roy Galley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) for the way in which she introduced the debate and for her competent summary of the Select Committee's report. It is important for me to say that, and it is genuinely meant. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that all members of the Select Committee were, generally speaking, hon. Friends. I hope that that is the case. However, in view of the way our revered Chairman

looks at me in Committee, I feel that she does not always regard me as an hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I believe that she introduced the debate in a competent and helpful way.
The jarring note that has been introduced into the debate by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is unfortunate, because we have had a constructive debate so far. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is unable to stand at the Dispatch Box and be graceful or constructive about our proceedings.
In the comprehensive summary of the report by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East there were one or two nuances with which perhaps not all Committee members would agree. They may not agree with her interpretation of the contents of the report. Committee reports are so skilfully worded by our competent Clerks that a variety of interpretations is possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is important that the House should understand that the reports are not drawn up by Clerks. They are drawn up by Committee members. We, not the Clerks, are responsible for the wording of our reports. I hope that the House and those beyond the House realise that.

Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me on that important point. There are times when the skilful wording of the Clerks assists the Committee in coming to an agreed conclusion. One must recognise that fact.
The advantages that result from the present system have not been emphasised in the debate. One can understand the concerns about the conflict with community care policy that the present arrangements present. One cannot necessarily put a price on the important element of freedom of choice. The system that has developed over the past five or six years has meant a variety of provision that has provided a greater freedom of choice for many elderly people and has reduced pressure on the budgets and staff of many local authority social services departments. That freedom of choice should be encouraged.
Freedom of choice and value for money will be increasingly important because of the demographic pressures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh so eloquently referred. It is clear that an integrated national cost limit system must be applied to residential care for the elderly. If such cost limits are set at a realistic level, with adequate flexibility for transitional arrangements and for special care additions, we should be able to obtain a balance so that the private sector is adequately reimbursed, no one milks the system, appropriate provision is made for the elderly, and variety is provided, by public and private sectors in partnership, to assist the elderly who require residential care.
The growth in the level of expenditure has rightly led to great concern about cost benefit analysis. There is a requirement for the protection of the elderly in residential care and at the same time for the safeguarding of taxpayers' money. That has led to sustained calls—we have heard echoes in the debate— for a co-ordinated system of assessment. The proposal appears to be for a multi-disciplinary approach involving social workers, the DHSS and other appropriate voluntary or statutory agencies, with the objective that local authorities should, in essence, determine whether people in private residential homes should be eligible for supplementary benefit support.
I must inform the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that I have qualms about a comprehensive assessment proposal such as that under consideration. It is one of the main recommendations from the joint central and local government working party. It will introduce a bureaucratic straitjacket and mean that people will need a local authority ticket for a residential place. That would restrict freedom of choice, unless people could afford their residential places.
Some people choose to live in a residential home because they want to be looked after, and they can afford to pay for it. Others, who are unable to pay, would need local authority approval before being able to take a residential place. A tight assessment system, such as has been suggested, would reduce the latter group's freedom of choice, so it would be somewhat discriminatory.
There may also be problems for people who could initially afford a residential place but whose funds became exhausted. They would then have to be assessed for supplementary benefit purposes before being given support. The proposed assessment system would produce several anomalies.
It must be possible, within an integrated national system, to cope with the needs of the elderly and to preserve existing choice. We must equate more clearly the rules for supplementary benefit support in private and local authority accommodation. That especially applies to the rules on capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh rightly emphasised that we must treat fairly people who are elderly and handicapped vis-a-vis those who are younger and handicapped. We do not need complete local authority control of residential care.
It is important, however, that local authorities should have and should develop a role in monitoring accommodation and standards of care in the private sector, as happens now, but we need a coherent and consistent pattern of inspection. It is, however, unacceptable that some local authorities, perhaps as a result of hostility to the private sector, operate needlessly exacting standards, which are often much higher than are applied to their own accommodation, for private sector provision.
There are sometimes differences between one local authority and another in the standards required of residential homes even in adjacent areas. The same is true of nursing homes and the involvement of health authorities in their inspection. There may well be a case for a more independent inspection body covering residential and nursing homes than the public provider of residential care inspecting private providers.
The high level of residential care provision which is funded by supplementary benefit highlights the dangers of an oversimplified analysis of expenditure trends. I hope that the Select Committee's report avoids any such oversimplification. Much of the increased support for elderly residential care has transferred some local authority personal social services expenditure to the social security budget, although it is difficult to assess how much. If the money had been allocated to personal social services, local authorities might have been able to choose to spend it in other ways, but much of it would have had to be spent on services for the elderly simply because of demographic pressures.
If we analyse projections of personal social services expenditure, we have to take that factor into account. Taking crude social service expenditure figures and arguing that it has not increased sufficiently is nonsense if no regard is paid to the fact that a substantial part of the £280 million of social security spending is on residential care. Figures for social services expenditure in the Select Committee's fourth report must be seen in that light.
Such considerations also emphasise the need for the Department, when presenting its figures to the Select Committee, to demonstrate the interconnecting elements of its budget provision. That applies to the relationship not just between personal social services and social security, but also between hospital services, family practitioner services, social security, personal social services and the implications of many of those heads of expenditure for community care. The simplistic number crunching in which many people have recently indulged is not an adequate guide to what is happening in residential care or in any of the DHSS's other areas of responsibility.
There must be a more sophisticated approach. We must consider how many patients are treated, how many have the advantages of residential care and how service provision is improved. The present variety of service provision and the methods of funding it is to be encouraged and cherished rather than condemned, as it has been by some hon. Members today.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and her Committee on this timely report on a matter of growing concern to hon. Members of all parts of the House. The problem affects us in our constituencies. None of us can escape the present demographic changes and the problem of how to help the elderly population.
In another context I have drawn the attention of the House to how the problem was brought home to me in my constituency. When I first entered Parliament 12 years ago, all but two of the 36 residents in the old people's home in my constituency were able to go for a walk down to the village, for example, to buy tobacco, newspapers and sweets. Only two were stuck in the home. Now, all but two are bound to the home.
That change reflects what has happened in the community. The population has aged and local authority homes for them have undertaken a function which used to be undertaken by geriatric wards in hospitals. Those wards are now cram-packed and cannot cope. The pressure had to be relieved in some way. The growth in the number of private homes is a response to that pressure, which has developed since 1978. A financing mechanism in response to that pressure has also become available.
If Ministers had been told in 1978 or 1979 that the cost of providing private residential care through the supplementary benefit system would increase from £6 million in 1978 to £280 million now, I am sure that they would have had apoplexy, just as they do now when we say that such money is needed to help with care in the community policies. We advanced that argument in our debates on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill.
It is right that we should ask how the money is being spent and whether it is being spent in the most effective way. Paragraph 40 of the Select Committee report says that from 1980–81 to 1984–85 there needed to be a 2 per


cent. per annum growth in personal social services expenditure, but that there was only a 3·4 per cent. growth in real terms during the five-year period. Paragraph 41 says:
Sixty-four local authorities fell short of this target, so in three authorities out of every five, there is reason for concern about the adequacy of the growth of provision.
That translates into the balance of places in homes.
If we consider the figures for local authority homes, we see that in 1979 there were 129,000 places. That figure increased to 135,000 in 1984—a relatively small increase given the tremendously increased pressure in this sector. In the voluntary sector the number of places has increased from 37,000 to 43,000, which is a slightly greater proportion of growth, but is still relatively small. The number of places in private homes has almost doubled, from 34,000 to 66,000. This shows how the problem has been met by using the supplementary benefit system, and perhaps using it in a manner that was not thoroughly considered when the changes took place. The proportion of places in private homes or based on supplementary benefit increased from 15 per cent. to more than 40 per cent. during that period. That underlines the problem.
We all know the range of problems faced by the private homes in our constituencies. North Wales is a beautiful area, and it is easy for someone who has been a car mechanic in Liverpool and has been made redundant to open a home for elderly people in a beautiful part of Gwynedd. Some people have done it well, without any experience, but the standards of homes, to say the least, are variable. I have grave doubts whether some of them should have been allowed to open. A problem arises from the mushrooming of homes in, for example, seaside towns. Substantial pressure is then put on the social services departments and on the health authorities in those areas.
A similar problem has been reported to me of an elderly person who went into a private home as a relatively able-bodied person and was then taken seriously ill, taken to hospital, and the private home did not want him back. Inevitably, that situation will arise in some private homes. Whether it is stated in such specific terms is another matter. There is a danger of some people feeling insecure. I acknowledge and accept that homes for elderly people in the private sector play a role in a balanced community, provided that they meet the necessary standards, which must include the provision that when an elderly person enters a home, that is his home. We do not kick elderly people out of our domestic homes. We do not throw out a grandmother or an uncle when they become ill because they are too much of a burden. Illness cannot be accepted as a burden in private homes for the elderly.

Sir David Price: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the problem to which he draws the attention of the House also exists in part III accommodation? Many of us have had experience of people who have been in hospital, especially in a geriatric ward, for any length of time having their places in part III accommodation filled because of the demand for it. It is difficult to get them out of the geriatric hospital and back into alternative part III accommodation. That applies across the public and private sectors.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that it is a problem. The problem also arises on the other side. When elderly people go into hospital, the hospital often wants to move them out without there being any proper facilities for them to go to. They are moved like ping-pong balls backwards and

forwards. We all know of such cases. The elderly patient's relatives come to us and say, "What can you do to help this person who has become ill or disabled and who is caught in that position?"
I have no doubt that the public policy subscribed to by the Government and by other parties in the House to try to maximise care in the community is right for that reason. The most helpful way of catering for people is to have flexible support services that can be built up as necessary to help the carers in their homes and their family environment.
The Ernst and Whinney report mentions problems with standards. How do we measure standards? I should mention the costings on which the places in private homes are based. In the Ernst and Whinney report, the cost per place in determining the supplementary benefit ceiling has been based on the shared room concept, but the January 1986 circular issued by the Government, entitled "Residential Homes — Guidance on Standards of Accommodation" which makes a cross-reference to the code of practice entitled "Home Life" states:
While most current and future residents will prefer single bedsitting rooms, some double occupancy rooms may still be needed, for example for married couples.
The emphasis is on single rooms. That defines the standard. It worries me that the supplementary benefit figures have been based on costings for shared rooms. A problem exists there which the Government have not fully addressed.
The Social Services Select Committee, probably referring to evidence submitted by the parliamentary panel on personal social services, drew attention to the spread of cost and the tremendous range of costs for old people. The Committee mentions figures from £51 to more than £200. That highlights the differences. How does one obtain a measuring rod for what is proper value and a proper standard with that enormous spread of costs? It is a problem that we have not properly addressed, but we must. We must find a way of setting up a flexible system that caters for disabled and severely disabled people.
In a recent statement on the uprating of the board and lodging allowances, the Minister acknowledged the special needs of some groups of people over pension age, through the creation of new categories of payments. However, he did not extend this recommendation of need to those under pension age. The limit for those people remains at £180, without even an uprating to allow for inflation.
The Spastics Society has underlined the problem that it faces when it tries to help such people through direct provision. It said in a letter to me:
For many younger multiply handicapped people f180 still falls far short of meeting the costs of their care. The Spastics Society is increasingly working with this group of more profoundly handicapped people whose needs were not recognised in the past when there was no alternative to large institutional care.
The fee in Spastics Society units is about £300 a week.
We need a system that allows for variable costs. The Government have responded to representations by the Spastics Society and suggested dual registration. For social reasons the Spastics Society does not wish to accept a dual registration system. The society suggests that the answer might be for more profoundly handicapped people to be able to claim the nursing home rate without having to live in nursing care. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will respond to that proposal, which


has been with his Department for several weeks. He knows the difficulty faced by the Spastics Society, and I hope that he can respond to the specific and practical suggestion that it has made.
In Wales, with the all-Wales policy for integrating mentally handicapped people into the community, we are witnessing developments in community care. We have recognised especially the need for close liaison between the providers of services, whether they are the health authorities, the local social services departments or the voluntary sector. For that reason, I respond warmly to some of the recommendations made in the report. Recommendation 31 states:
we recommend that the Government analyse closely the interaction between health service finance, local government finance and social security with a view to ensuring that joint planning does not founder because of inadequate knowledge by one sector of government of the implications of its actions on community care projects and on the joint planning process.
That is very important. The more that we see in Wales and in other areas where progress has been made in that context, the more we become aware of a need to move in that direction.
We are faced with some difficult decisions if we wish to obtain a finely tuned system which maximises choice, which maintains standards and freedom, which ensures that provision is made on a community-based level wherever possible and which is neutral and does not push people in certain directions. I spoke a moment ago about freedom of choice, and that is something we need. It should not lead families to dump old people in semi-institutional care. We should maximise choice. Side by side with supplementary benefit payments we should consider how such services can be financed in the community.
This report must be considered in the context of our debates on the Social Security Bill and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, and the debate on care in the community that we had a few months ago. As has been suggested by several hon. Members today, the care element should be considered over and above, and aside from, the board and lodging element. That may be the way forward. The care element should be flexible and be directed appropriately. Whether a person is living in his own home and maintained by carers in the community, in a private home, or in a local authority home, additional resources should be made available to meet the needs of caring. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), I should say that flexibility might encourage people to keep places for those who may become more profoundly disabled as years go by.
I hope that the Government will take on board some of the very important points made by the Committee and that the debate will not end at 7 o'clock without some progress having been made.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He made a most constructive and helpful contribution. It is rather sad that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), did not set a similar example. Setting aside the party political polemic, the prejudice and the dogma in his comments, he put

forward some sensible ideas which merit consideration by the House and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will respond to the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon on his useful contribution, which highlighted some important areas of concern. Since being elected as the hon. Member for Macclesfield in 1971, I have visited the part III homes in my constituency at least once, and sometimes twice, each year to see exactly what is happening and to hear from the staff and the residents. Therefore, as a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, I am well aware of the opinions of residents of part III homes and of the problems faced by the staff of county residential homes.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that in recent years the health and condition of the people living in part III hopes has dramatically changed. I served for six years on Warwickshire county council and used to visit part III homes in that county. The majority of elderly residents were mobile; very few, if any, were incontinent; and none was doubly incontinent. The position has changed dramatically during the past 20 years, because, of course, the people who are now residents of our part III homes were 20 years younger then, and they are now very elderly. I do not think that I will mislead the House if I estimate that in part III homes in Macclesfield two thirds of the residents are singly incontinent, and quite a high proportion of them are probably doubly incontinent. Those part III homes were not designed for people needing that level of care, who, because of their health, place an immense burden of care on the staff who work in the social services departments of the county councils.
We are faced with an increasingly difficult and complex problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that perhaps the supplementary benefit eligibility for entering a private or voluntary residential nursing home should be based upon need, not just upon the availability of resources for that person. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also picked up that point. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will turn his attention to this matter in his reply.
If I may be parochial—perhaps it is not inappropriate to be parochial in the House occasionally—I shall refer to the importance of the elderly in my area. The elderly top the housing list of Macclesfield borough council. Of the 3,400 on housing waiting lists, 1,125 are elderly people requiring specialist accommodation specifically constructed for them. I highlight that statistic to show the level of concern about this matter in many areas of the country, not least in my area, which is a progressive area where the number of elderly people is increasing dramatically. That places increasing burdens upon the hospital facilities required for geriatric accommodation, and produces a requirement for the building of more specialist accommodation, and for more domiciliary care.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised an important issue when he said that we must ensure that more specialist staff are available to help people to remain in their own homes. I agree with that.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon was the first in the debate to highlight the position of carers in our society —those who look after elderly relatives—who take it as their personal and voluntary responsibility to look after someone they have known for many years who has become extremely old and needs to be looked after at home. Those people have taken a great responsibility upon their


shoulders, removing a considerable cost which otherwise would have fallen upon the state. I hope that additional resources can be directed towards carers, who play a unique and most valuable role. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service by raising that matter so clearly.
Some Opposition Members have implied criticism of the private and voluntary sectors and of their role in making provision for the elderly in our society. That is unfortunate, because it is appropriate that the private sector should put capital into the provision of accommodation for the elderly, whether it is straightforward residential accommodation or specialist nursing accommodation.
In my constituency—experience is perhaps helpful in debates such as this — there is good co-operation between the social services district offices of Cheshire county council, covering the Macclesfield area, and those who run private residential and nursing homes. I readily admit to Opposition Members that there has been a considerable growth in the number of both private residential homes and private nursing homes in my constituency. I balance that by saying that the majority of the proprietors worked previously in the public sector, establishing a fine reputation for the quality of the care that they gave the people in their charge in part III or similar institutions and homes. They are now transferring that care and expertise to the private sector and providing much money to open homes of the highest standard. The public and private sectors can work together to provide the widest range of good quality residential and nursing home accommodation for the elderly.
I think that the Government are open to some criticism. It is clear that they were taken slightly by surprise by the growth in the number of homes and the amount of money that is being spent through supplementary benefit on meeting the costs of those who are in private residential homes and private nursing homes. We should not seek to reduce the number of private residential homes or private nursing homes. Indeed, I should like to see their numbers further expanded so that they can be complementary to the continuing growth of part Ill and other specialist accommodation in the public sector. They should work together to a common end and objective.

Mr. Frank Field: Unfortunately, I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He will understand why we are all so busy today. He has said that he wants an expansion of the private sector. Presumably he wants that for those who need the service that that will provide and not for those who are put into homes by their families.

Mr. Winterton: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters. He and I often find ourselves on the same side of the argument. I said earlier that I agreed with the sensible argument of the hon. Member for Oldham, West — it was hidden within the political polemics, dogma and prejudice — that eligibility for supplementary benefit for a person to go to a home should be based to a greater extent upon need and not merely on the resources that might be available. That is important, and my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will be dealing in some detail with this issue.
I regularly visit private nursing homes and residential homes in my constituency, such as Pott Hall nursing home near Bollington and Bryher house residential home, as well

as part III homes. I believe that the standards of care, facilities and expertise are extremely high. However, if there are to be private homes as a result of people putting up private capital, they should be properly inspected and carefully licensed before they are allowed to take the elderly, those who require specialist care, the mentally ill, the disabled and the severely handicapped, or whatever other category, and care for them, and they should be regularly and closely monitored.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows, because of his expertise, it is easy to open a home with high standards, but unless the home is run properly and is carefully administered and there is proper supervision by those who know what they are doing, standards can quickly deteriorate. Those who go to a private home can be pleased initially with what they are given, but they may find quickly thereafter that they are not getting value for money. The care that they receive may be worse than that which was available to them in their own homes, where they were lonely, before their application for a place in a residential home or nursing home was accepted.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) is not in her place. The hon. Lady chairs the Select Committee on Social Services with great decorum and distinction. If my memory serves me correctly, she has chaired the Committee and its predecessor Committees for about 16 years. I have been pleased to serve under her—I had better rephrase that. I have been privileged to serve with the hon. Lady on the Committee for about 12 years. We have established the sort of rapport, co-operation and understanding that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley).
The Select Committee on Social Services is perhaps the least glamorous of all the Select Committees, but I am not being immodest when I say that it is one of the most important, if not the most important, of all the Select Committees. Those who serve on it work exceedingly hard. They are backed by excellent staff and by equally excellent advisers who assist from time to time with our more important inquiries.
The Committee was told that £280 million was spent in 1985 on private and voluntary residential care for the elderly, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the sum will be greater this year. It will probably be well in excess of £300 million. In the main, that is money well spent. With the rapid growth of expenditure in this area, however, the Government must monitor spending much more closely and have a more sensible and rational policy on the allocation of resources. At the same time, there must be the sort of flexibility that was referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. On whichever side of the Chamber we may sit, we must surely have one common objective—to provide the very best accommodation and the most expert and caring care for the elderly who need to resort to residential or nursing home accommodation. Surely that must be a shared objective.
Much mention has been made of community care, a subject about which I feel fervently. On Saturday, I shall preside at the opening of a large garden fete at Parkside hospital in my constituency, which cares for the mentally ill. Over many years it has established the highest reputation for the care which it gives to those suffering from mental illness. Some of those people have been there for practically the whole of their lives, which means several


decades. The hospital, in the form which we know it, is threatened with closure. The health authority has suggested that it will replace it with two hostels for the mentally ill.
Community care is vital, and let us try to keep those who are handicapped, such as the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped, in their homes if we can do that by providing the right accommodation and properly qualified and appropriately skilled staff, but let us not put people out into the community merely to close a mental hospital or psychiatric hospital so that the hospital can be sold and we can realise capital assets by making the site available for building. We may put people into hostels, and some may be suitable for them, but what about the specialist facilities that are provided within hospitals? I have in mind sheltered workshops, hydrotherapy pools and other specialist facilities and accommodation. These things cannot be provided within a hostel complex. I hope that all hospital authorities will consider carefully what they are doing before fine hospitals are closed and lost for ever. There will always be a limited number of places required in long-stay hospitals for those who suffer from the more acute forms of schizophrenia, and we have all seen on television horrific documentary programmes about schizophrenics. This topic is close to my heart and I shall be making a plea publicly on Saturday at Parkside hospital that the authorities in my area—

Mr. Frank Field: The press are in the Gallery.

Mr. Winterton: I am not worried about those who are not in the Chamber. I shall make the plea that the authorities will consider the long-term needs of those who require refuge and 24-hours-a-day hospital care.
The Select Committee has presented a good report and it merits a considered response from my hon. Friend the Minister. I am confident that we shall get it. I think that we are united in our objective for the elderly, and I hope that the Government will give us some reassurances this evening.

Mr. Allen McKay: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and that shows how deeply hon. Members on both sides of the House care about the disabled, the weak, the infirm and those who cannot look after themselves. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on the report and on the work that she has undertaken for so long on behalf of such people.
This issue is both important and highly volatile. The problem will not go away, but will rather increase. Without any shadow of doubt, people will continue to live longer as more facilities and medical services are provided, and that is, of course, only right. At one time, every family strove to look after its young and elderly. Now, however, families are often split up, either because a husband has had to travel the length and breadth of the country to find work or because he has had to follow up work that he has already undertaken. Thus, we must consider not only the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, but also the future.
When I was chairman of housing, I looked at this problem together with architects and planners. We found

that often those who might want to care for their parents were unable to do so, because they lacked the facilities. Consequently, I believe that we must plan and must think of creating space for granny flats. Some countries plan for the time when the children will have to care for their parents. Accordingly, they design their houses so that accommodation can be added on at a later date, enabling the parents to live their lives while allowing the children to do so, too. Of course, it also means that the parents are cared for.
The Yorkshire Post highlighted some of the problems to be found in certain private accommodation. It would be wrong to take a broad-brush approach and to condemn private accommodation as a whole. But, according to the report, there are areas of concern which I believe the House should consider. I also believe that we should reinforce the inspection arrangements undertaken by local authorities, or by local authorities acting in conjunction with the health authorities in some areas. According to the report in the Yorkshire Post, there must be constant vigilance to ensure that things are right. If we are to adapt to the increase in the number of elderly people, we must give them confidence in how private or part III accommodation is built and run.
I have no doubts about my local authority. Regular inspections are carried out not only by officers but by councillors. Councillors are encouraged to make regular visits to their part III accommodation. I visit part III accommodation, and only last Saturday I went to one of the homes. I got great pleasure from that home's oldest resident who had been there for more than 12 years. That resident congratulated those who care for the residents on their standards of cleanliness, on the food that was provided and on the care that had been shown. Indeed, in general, even better standards probably result from such expressions of thanks.
I greatly admire those who look after the elderly. They are very special people. However, sometimes general hospitals inadvertently act as homes. Those, in particular, who have no relatives will not be turned out of a general hospital even if they are taking up a valuable bed simply because the next stage, the geriatric hospital, is full and there is no part III accommodation.
Hon. Members must consider carefully the policy of care in the community. If we can build the facilities needed for care in the community, people will be far better off in the community than in part III accommodation, or in any home, however good it is.
Will the Minister give an assurance that he will consider those points? Will he also give an assurance that the report in the Yorkshire Post will not be put on one side but will be investigated? I hope either that things will be put right, or that the investigation will show that there was no substance to the report. But some investigation is necessary for the confidence and well-being of those in the area.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am no longer a member of the Select Committee, and this year I did not have the privilege of being involved in the report on the expenditure Estimates. But it is clear that, yet again, the Committee has done good work and I am glad that we are debating this subject today.
Statements about the growth in the expenditure involved and in the number of those receiving this form of


supplementary benefit have been well rehearsed. Paragraph 70 of the report states that the cost of payments to elderly people increased from £6 million in 1978 to an estimated £280 million last year. The number of recipients also increased from 7,000 in 1978 to 42,000 in 1984, and the average payment increased from £15·70 to £88 per week in 1984. One cannot go any further than that, because no one knows how many people receive that benefit or what its current cost is. But my guess is that the figure for the number of recipients may well have doubled during the past two years to 80,000, and that the suggested figure of £300 million is probably a very conservative estimate. If it has not yet reached £500 million, I should he most surprised.
When my husband and I were house-hunting in my constituency during the summer and autumn of 1983, we looked at several large houses. Nearly all of them have now been taken over and have received planning permission for use as private old people's homes. Indeed, I now have the considerable pleasure of visiting them and opening them at the rate of approximately one a month. I am delighted to note the standard of care that they offer. Those involved have certainly made a much better job of renovating the properties than I and my family would have done. I have no doubt that they are doing a first-class job, and I am glad to put that on the record.
I had intended to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but I am bereft; my quarry has flown. He has scuttled off to have his tea. Perhaps that is the greatest compliment that he could pay me, but—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has, to my certain knowledge, an engagement outside the Chamber. Before he left, he told me that he greatly regretted that it was unavoidable. I know that he would particularly regret being unable to hear what my hon. Friend wanted to say to him.

Mrs. Currie: I am even more astonished that my own Minister should apologise on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, but there we are. It shows what an honourable and decent gentleman my hon. Friend the Minister is.
I listened to the comments and criticisms of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and waited in vain for a word of congratulation on the tremendous growth in expenditure, which has done so much to help many more people and which helps to care for such a large proportion of our elderly people. I could not figure out whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of that growth in expenditure and wanted it to be increased, or whether he was agin it, and would like to cut it out entirely. That is why I asked him about his attitude to private residential care. I was interested in what he said. He said that he understood that private homes could not all be closed, but that he believed that the private residential care sector should not expand. That is what he said, and I understood him to mean that the Labour party might have a policy of freezing all places and of keeping the number at its present level. I also understood him to mean that no more such homes should open and that there might be a ban on giving planning permission to any such future homes.
Perhaps one of the Labour Members present can tell me whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West had authority

to say all that, or whether he was thinking on his feet. If he did not have any authority to say that, does he intend to return at some future stage to say that private residential care should be expanded—something which I would welcome—or that such homes should be closed? I suspect that the latter is what he would like, if he had half a chance.
It is also worth pointing out that the Select Committee confirmed something that Government Members have believed for some time: that it is the DHSS rate of benefit which sets the level of prices and rents charged. In paragraph 72 of its report the Select Committee discussed the history of this benefit. The paragraph says:
landlords raised their prices to meet the limits.
Hon. Members will remember the many occasions when Government Members have said that that was exactly what was happening, that if levels of benefit are increased the rents and charges will go up. Opposition Members said no, that could not happen and that the charges accurately reflected the absolute necessity to pay amounts of that sort. Of course it happens, and the DHSS is at last aware of it. I am glad that the Select Committee has confirmed it in such a competent and efficient way.
I am worried about the increased dependence of the private system on state funding. I should like to quote some figures from the parliamentary panel on personal social services, covering the period from 1979 to 1984. It says:
while private provision has nearly doubled, supplementary benefit payments have increased 20-fold.
As a result, the percentage of the independent sector financed through supplementary benefit has increased from about 14 per cent. in 1978 to 40 per cent. in 1984. My guess is that that figure must now be over half and may be as much as two thirds of the private sector. Certainly most of the growth in the last couple of years must have been financed substantially by the state supplementary benefit system.
I am never happy when I see a private profit-making industry, however competent, drawing most of its revenue from the state, especially when that percentage is rising so sharply. The Government now face a substantial and well organised pressure group which did not exist before. It has been sending papers to the hon. Member for Oldham, West which he busily read out. That will make it difficult to do what the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants to do, which is to stop any further growth.
My hon. Friends will know that I support almost any effort to reduce the burden of social security. I read for the first time in connection with this debate the booklet entitled "Supply Estimates 1986–87". There are some nuggets in there about how we might do something to reduce expenditure while improving the quality of care. We are talking about residential care, and I should like to mention one item of expenditure. It is only £3·5 million but it is quite interesting and is contained in page 24 at section G2.
The section says that we provide maintenance and treatment for about 59 severely disturbed children and young persons at two national residential centres. It costs us £3,672,000 a year. That works out at £62,000 per child per year, or more than £1,000 per week. I know those two centres. They are St. Charles in Essex and Glenthorne in Birmingham. If the DHSS would like to improve the quality of care that it is giving to young people and save some money on residential care, that is obviously


something that it could have a go at. Local authorities pay about £1·5 million back into the kitty and that simply means that the cost to the Exchequer is reduced to about £30,000 per child per year. On that basis, we could buy Eton, let alone buy places at Eton for the children concerned, and they might be whacked into some kind of shape. That is one example that I commend to my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friends also know about the problem posed for these Estimates by the fact that the increasing numbers of elderly people will get worse. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and I found it very moving and accurate. He said that the demand for residential care was bound to grow. The Minister of State said the same thing to the Select Committee and was quoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
The numbers are quite frightening in many ways. In 1961 we had fewer than 2 million people aged between 75 and 84 and barely 250,000 over the age of 85. By 1996, in 10 years' time, we will have 3 million people aged between 75 and 84 and I million aged over 85. Together they will form 7 per cent. of the population. We all know that that is happening because those people are here now. Some of them are sitting in the Chamber and I hope that they will achieve this great age. A number of them form a substantial majority in the other place and give excellent service to the nation. I hope to join those numbers of elderly when the time comes.

Mr. Frank Field: Is not the hon. Lady being slightly unfair to the other place? Surely that is a model for the type of local authority home that we ought to have in every district. It has a speaking room, a sleeping room and an eating room. There are no nurses in white coats, only people in black suits and the residents are called my Lord and my Lady and they live for ever. That is not something to be abolished but something to be spread throughout the nation.

Mrs. Currie: That is a well-put point. They are also a great deal more with it and modern than we are in this House, having insisted that their proceedings should be televised—and a very good job they do of it.
We all know about these figures and quote them. They are in all the reports, but is anybody planning to listen on the basis of what these figures really mean? Is the Treasury listening? Are the figures being built in? According to the Select Committee report, the DHSS managed to get it wrong to the tune of over £1 billion this year. That makes one wonder whether the DHSS is listening. I am aware that the statistics, according to the Select Committee, on which a great deal of DHSS planning is done are a little inadequate. I understand from paragraph 67 that the latest available data relate to 1981 and that the DHSS has problems with the 1983 family expenditure survey, but it is worth reflecting what those increases in numbers mean. This budget and this group of Estimates which are causing such headaches in the DHSS could have been foreseen and will continue to grow.
It is the same in other parts of the public services. The elderly use nine to 10 times as much of the National Health Service as fit younger people. Is that factor being built in? If it is not, that helps us to understand why the tremendous real increase in expenditure on the National Health Service

—the figures that the Prime Minister quoted on the radio this morning — seems to vanish into thin air. It is because the people using the Health Service are not the same people as they used to be and their requirements are now quite different.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench know that I have been one of those calling for an assessment system for the people gaining admission to the private homes and who are able to claim supplementary benefit. If we are to achieve our dual objectives in this field — to cope with the increasing numbers of old people with some dignity and give them the right and opportunity to live in some comfort and at the same time to keep the budget under control — the budget cannot be demand-led and unrestricted for much longer. We are not being unkind when we say this because this rapid growth deprives other elderly and disabled people who may well be in much greater need. I deeply resented the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who said that such things as home helps and meals on wheels are not Government priorities. They are Government priorities and we have seen rapid expansion in both services under Conservative Governments and Conservative councils.
The key is to ensure that the people receiving the funds that we are debating are in both financial and physical need. Some assessment system has to be devised which does more than look at their financial requirements. The DHSS will have to develop a system under which it can say no and can say to the fit and active 60-year-old, "No, you do not need to live in an old people's home and if you do we will not pay for it until such time as you need it."

Mr. Allen McKay: Would the hon. Lady turn the argument round and say that we should also provide sufficient money to local authorities to enable them to build more aged people's homes so that people would have to come out of their three and four-bedroom houses and would not need to go into part III accommodation?

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me a little, and if it is my fault, I apologise. I do not particularly want to see a growth in council-run homes. I do not mind who runs the homes, as long as they are well run, and I do not mind who pays for the homes, as long as when it is the state—which it is increasingly and, I suspect, to the tune of rather more than half the amount that is going into the private sector—we should have some say as to whom the money goes to and as long as there is some recognition of need. I should be perfectly happy if all the homes were run by the private sector. If they could be run to the same standards of quality as those in South Derbyshire, that would be absolutely marvellous.

Mr. McKay: Perhaps I may put the hon. Lady right. I was not referring to who provides the accommodation; I was referring to bungalows for the aged. They would enable those who are now living in three-and fourbedroomed houses to move into smaller dwellings and still live in the community and care for themselves, which they cannot do while they are living in three-or four-bedroomed houses.

Mrs. Currie: I agree entirely. If the hon. Gentleman ever has time to look at my record as housing chairman in Birmingham, he will find that that is exactly what I did.
I call attention to one sentence in paragraph 75 of the Select Committee's report. The Committee did not highlight this sentence, but it sums up everything that has been said in this debate. It says:
A clear national policy for the support of the elderly inside and outside residential care must be devised.
That is absolutely right. I have complete faith that the Government and the Ministers who are on the Treasury Bench today will devise such a policy, and I call upon them to do it as soon as possible.

Mr. Frank Field: Many hon. Members will know that Martin Gilbert created a cottage industry by producing many volumes on different aspects of the life of Winston Churchill. One of those volumes records the fact that when visitors who had been invited to Chartwell approached the summer-house in the garden to greet Churchill they heard the grand old man say, "Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be called today." I did not expect to be called today. However, I want to put four points to the Minister, although I did not rehearse them in my summerhouse at Chartwell before I came to the House.
First, will the Minister respond to the pleas from both sides of the House that access to old people's homes should be controlled? I am not asking that question, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) emphasised, only because of concern about rising costs and the contribution made by the taxpayer. I am asking it because I believe that old people's homes are meant for those who are unable to survive in the community and that access should he limited to them. Both sides of the House have suggested that local authorities would be in a good position to determine who should have access to them.
The Minister probably expects Opposition Members, if not Conservative Members, to say that local authorities would find it difficult to undertake that task if they were not provided with additional staff. Considerable savings can be made if money is moved from one Department to another. In this case, money would be moved from the Department of Health and Social Security to the local authorities. Given that there is all-party agreement, I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say about that when he replies to the debate.
Secondly, in his typically powerful way, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to the need to check the standards of this form of service. He drew a distinction between the need to ensure that somebody can provide a service and what can happen to that service over a period if we as a community do not keep a friendly eye on it.
I am not making a plea for a form of police force. Although all hon. Members can point with considerable pride to the local authority and private sector services in their areas, I guess that many of us are worried about the services that are provided by some of those who have newly entered the field. This is partly because some people want to make a quick buck, but in other cases people are unaware of the correct standards and how they can be maintained over a period.

Sir David Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my suggestion that the DHSS should develop an inspectorate along the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, which has a positive role to play?

Mr. Field: I did not expect to be called today, but I made a note to refer to that point if I was called. I have

not heard that suggestion before. My thinking has been typically local authority dominated, but the suggestion is valuable. Although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his speech, I am sure that we have all grasped the paint that if an inspectorate can cross local authority boundaries it will pick up the best practice and the worst practice in different local authorities, whereas a single local authority has only its own area from which to build up its expertise.
I hope that the Minister will refer to the need to maintain the standard of care that is provided for frail and sometimes confused old people. Clearly they are vulnerable because of their confusion and frailty. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said, a large amount of public money is now being directed to this area. Therefore, we ought to ensure that the money is spent in a way that would make us happy if we were residents in any of these homes, of if members of our family were resident in them.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will answer the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D Price) about the attendance allowance. He criticised the fact that the rules governing the use of the attendance allowance to help to pay for the total cost of a stay in a home have been changed. I disagree with him about that. I thought that it was a sensible change. It did not lead to taxation of the benefit. It provided that if the charge made by the home was higher than that which would be covered by supplementary benefit, the attendance allowance should be taken into account. That is reasonable. What is completely unreasonable is that when that change was made many of our constituents had their attendance allowance, or part of it, taken into account for the first time in meeting the cost of their place in an old people's home. The rest of the allowance was frozen or, more accurately, was lost. When the next round of increases in charges took place, that part of the amount that had been frozen was not unfrozen. This is a particularly important point to which I hope the Minister will respond.
In Birkenhead, the lawyer who works with me and who has caused the Government so much good trouble, Nick Warren, took the case of one of my constituents to a tribunal. The tribunal ruled that the Government were behaving unlawfully. The first messages from the Department were slightly cocky. The Department said that it would challenge that ruling. However, it has not done so, for the simple reason that it now thinks that it would lose. As the Department does not believe that it could get the decision overturned, does it not have a duty to consider whether all those in old people's homes who have claimed attendance allowance but who have had most of it frozen, and who have therefore lost it, ought to be treated more equitably and fairly, as my Birkenhead constituent is being treated because the Department lost its case before an independent tribunal?
My last point is perhaps the most fundmental. We cannot expect the Minister to undo what has happened since 1980, but many of us must be unhappy that we have seen an increase in expenditure from the DHSS when, under other circumstances, one would have expected to see that expenditure from the local authority, even if that local authority was spending money in private provision as well as providing within the local authority sector. It undermines the Government's position when they regularly tell us that they cannot expect the DHSS to pay students money because that is an education function, yet they are paying large sums of money —it may be £500


million, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said —under the guise of supplementary benefit. That is a payment of allowances to people in the community, but we are talking about people who cannot live in the community and are covered by the provisions of an old people's home, whether private of public.
I end where many other hon. Members began, by thanking the Select Committee for producing this report. Like so many other of its reports, it is valuable. The subject that we have been discussing touches on a growing number of our constituents who, because of their frailty and age, are least able to look after and protect their interests. For that reason, if for no other, we are grateful to the Select Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. John Major): This is an important and wide-ranging subject, and the quality of the debate this afternoon has reflected that very well.
I take my grace note from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others by congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on introducing the Select Committee report, and on the manner and style in which she did so. I thank her also for her courtesy in making available earlier this week an advance extract on "Private and Voluntary Residential Care for the Elderly" from the Select Committee on Social Services report, which was published this morning. That was most helpful as it was the staple core of the debate, and I am extremely grateful.
A number of highly relevant matters have been raised this afternoon, as they were in the Select Committee report, and I shall endeavour to respond to as many as possible. It is entirely appropriate that our discussions should be based on an estimate of expenditure because, as both the Select Committee and almost every hon. Member who has spoken have commented, there has been a dramatic increase in cost for supplementary payments for residential and nursing homes and care in recent years. There is a variety of reasons for this, some of which were touched on. They are the increasing numbers of elderly people, the rising age profile, greater knowledge of entitlement to supplementary benefit, which has played an important part, and the availability in recent years of the supplementary benefit payments.
There is no doubt that expenditure on provision of accommodation and care for the elderly has inevitably risen over recent years. The availability of the supplementary benefit entitlement has provided an option for the elderly which previously would have been open only to a minority with substantial private resources. Many hon. Members will welcome that extension of options. Without that option, however, the choices for the elderly would have been more limited than they are. They would have had to rely simply on the help of their own resources, if they had any, or on the support and resources of their family, if their family had any, or on the capacity of the local authority to use its permissive powers to assist. The provision of supplementary benefit limits, whatever the individual criticisms may be, has extended an option that has brought for many elderly people a level of care and individual satisfaction that otherwise they may not have received.
The present position has evolved as a result of a number of policy changes, largely familiar to the House and accurately detailed in the Select Committee's report and set out by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. In view of the points that have been raised, I shall not reiterate the historical perspective of the situation in which we find ourselves.
It is true that in the period up to 1984 there was a huge increase in the number of people being helped with residential care and nursing home fees through supplementary benefit. The statistics, although already noted, are worth repeating, for they are startling. In 1978, supplementary benefit helped 7,000 people with their fees. The related expenditure was £6 million. In 1984, there were 42,000 claimants, and expenditure had risen to £190 million. Expenditure had in effect gone up thirty-fold in six years.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East specifically touched on this growth, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). They referred in detail to the certain demographic growth in the number of claimants. We have had to bear that in mind in determining the structure of assistance that we have provided. We have always to bear in mind the twin needs of providing the maximum amount of assistance that we can afford and ensuring that the relevant resources are used in the most satisfactory fashion; the Select Committee pointed out the desirability of doing that.
The new structure that we introduced in 1985, although not specifically the subject of the debate, is intended to target help better and prevent abuse. The old local limits have been replaced by a new national structure of limits related to the specific category of care provided. We did not just dream up those categories. They were drawn from the Registered Homes Act and the limits were determined from information about the differential costs of providing the appropriate levels of care for different client groups.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for acknowledging, as did the Select Committee, the recent changes in the supplementary limits. Those changes were specifically designed to give extra help where it is most needed, and added flexibility to the new structure within which we operate. To put them in their context, the changes follow an interim uplift of £10 given last November for all types of residential homes, and a substantial increase of £37·40 for nursing homes. The main new changes in addition are a further increase of £5 in the new limit for residential care homes for the elderly, a new limit of £140 for elderly people who are blind or who qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance, and a special extension of £17·50 for people living in residential care or nursing homes in Greater London. A number of points have been raised by hon. Members this afternoon, and I shall endeavour to deal with them as and when I deal with hon. Member's specific observations.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke with all the authority of the Chairman of the Select Committee. She spoke specifically of the extent to which she believed that supplementary expenditure on residential and nursing home care may have been out of control. I emphasise that they were her words rather than mine. The normal supplementary forecasts are based on a disaggregation of different client groups, and not on different household categories. Because of the specific


concern about board and lodging payments in 1984, special estimates were made in the Department about future expenditure in this sector.
As the supplementary benefit annual statistical inquiry showed, between December 1982 and December 1983, expenditure for people in residential care and nursing homes rose from £39 million to £105 million. Using those figures as a base, it was estimated that by December 1984 expenditure would increase to £190 million and would continue to increase by about 50 per cent. a year. Those estimates took account of foreseeable changes — for example, in the number of elderly people — but some other factors had to be considered which cannot be precisely quantified, such as the demand and need for residential care and the level of charges for it.
The expenditure figures from the annual statistical inquiry have not been fully analysed. In terms of the number of claimants, our estimates look remarkably accurate. We estimated that the number of claimants would increase from 25,800 in December 1983 to 42,500 by December 1984. The number for December 1984 was 42,000, so our estimates were perhaps rather more accurate than one may have been led to believe by the growth in global expenditure in that point. Perhaps the Department had the expenditure under tighter control than many may have supposed.
The hon. Lady also referred specifically to the desirability of comparable standards in public and private sector homes, and I agree with her about that. In 1984 we made it clear that local authorities should be consistent about standards across the sectors, and we have repeated our blandishments in 1986. The social services inspectorate inspects both public and private homes. It has a specific power to do so as and when it thinks it appropriate on a selective basis, but the prime responsibility for inspecting voluntary and private homes remains with the local authorities under legislation. So far as we can see, that is desirable and we expect that that will continue to be the case. We have a two-year monitoring study in hand and a report due towards the end of the year which may give us more information than we have had on an important and relevant part of this area.
The hon. Lady asked whether homes were being squeezed out of business. I understood her to say that, when the Department was asked, it appeared not to know the answer. I cannot respond precisely to the questions asked at that time and I do not have before me the answers that may have been issued, but there is no evidence now of homes closing because of the new structure. On the contrary, it remains a sustainable business, as the Select Committee stated in its report published this morning.
The Ernst and Whinney study on homes' costs also showed that homes could be profitable when charges were set at the supplementary benefit limits. I must emphasise that most residents are privately financed. Supplementary benefit supports about one third of those in independent homes, and more than two thirds are supported by their own resources or other than through the supplementary benefit system.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that the Ernst and Whinney assessment of the cost of homes was based on shared rooms, and that the Government's policy is for single rooms? Where does that put the assessment of the figures?

Mr. Major: I would not confirm that the assessment was based on the cost of shared rooms. The study took account of a variety of different factors. In reviewing the limits we considered a wide range of information on the gross unit costs per place and on charges for single and shared rooms, representations from interested people and organisations, and a variety of other factors. Therefore, the assessment was not based simply on shared rooms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that explanation of some comfort.
I shall return to a matter which has run through the debate, but first I shall touch on a related matter which was perhaps not specifically raised today but which was certainly raised in the Select Committee's report, and that is the recommendation that we should consider urgently the relationship of board and lodging payments to the new income support scheme. We accept the Committee's observations in that regard. We shall consider the future structure of payments for ordinary board and lodging during the coming months and issue proposals for consultation as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh touched on a number of confusions arising from the various sources of assistance for elderly people through residential care in the private sector, care in the voluntary sector and local authorities. It is perfectly true that the present relationship between the main supplementary benefit scheme and other forms of support for people in need of residential care is confusing and unsatisfactory. That has been the view of many hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon.
Obviously, support for those who cannot afford to pay for themselves can be provided either through supplementary benefit or from local authorities. However, it is clear that the parallel systems of local authority and supplementary benefit support overlap, and that the differences between them are confusing for people who run the systems, the staff who work within them, and, most important, for the people who require to be assisted by them. There are, for example, different rules about the assessment of clients' resources for both systems.
Because we recognise the anxieties raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and others, we have a major programme of work in hand to review the arrangements for the financial support of residents in local authority, private and voluntary residential care homes, and to improve collaboration between the Department and local authorities in this area. We are setting up pilot studies which will test the feasibility of using local authorities' existing assessment arrangements to assess the need of supplementary benefit payments for residential care. That point was raised specifically by the hon. Members for Birkenhead, for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Oldham, West, and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield and for Eastleigh. The report is in hand.
We are also seeking to examine the position of local authorities advising DHSS—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has been present throughout the afternoon. He is always a welcome refugee from his sun lamp, but so far as I am aware, although he may have been actively engaged this afternoon, he was not actively engaged in the Chamber. If he will allow me, perhaps I can turn my mind to responding to hon. Members who have been actively engaged in a good purpose this afternoon.
The pilot study will investigate the possibility of local authorities advising DHSS local offices on appropriate


levels of payments for particular homes. I acknowledge the reservations on assessment and the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). We have also set up with the local authorities a second joint working party to consider ways of harmonising financial support for people in residential care homes. The relationship between financial support for residential care and the income support scheme will depend on the outcome of the joint working party which we expect will report by Easter next year. The working party is considering three main options, at least one of which was trespassed on by the hon. Member for Birkenhead in his intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh.
The first option is that all support for residential care will be funded through benefits; the second is the opposite approach, with all support being provided by authorities; and the third, which may appeal most to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, is a mixture of the two with the support for the board and lodging element to be funded through benefit and with the care costs being met by local authorities. That matter was raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and we shall have to await the results of the discussions and consultations on it.
At the moment all options are open, but, as the House will appreciate, any of the proposals would involve major structural changes and I do not underestimate the difficulty of carrying those through. However, we are anxious to find the best possible mechanisms for assisting the elderly to obtain suitable accommodation while retaining, as the Select Committee is clearly anxious that we should, a proper control over public funds. I can assure the House that once we have firm proposals we shall make them available to the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister see any chance of doing that by April 1988?

Mr. Major: I said a moment ago that we hoped to have the report by Easter next year, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. As to legislative matters thereafter, that is not a matter for which I am responsible at this moment, despite the eager anticipation that raced into the hon. Gentleman's eye as he leaped to his feet.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, alas, missed the benefit of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South which referred to many of the remarks that he made and in so doing substantially truncated the remarks that I would have made, for which the House may be truly grateful. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the national limits that we introduced in April last year might have been too low. The limits were set on the basis of the best information that we had available to us. They were intended to enable reasonable charges to be met and they were successful in that endeavour.
When we introduced those limits we promised a full programme of monitoring and research. As a result of the initial feedback from that programme, we made substantial increases to the limits last November which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, now range from £120 to £180 for residential care homes and from £170 to £230 for nursing homes. Hon. Members will know that we have just completed a full review of all the board and lodging limits, the results of which I referred to a few moments ago.
I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's underlying point. Broadly speaking, the limits were at a relatively adequate level and subsequent research has shown that to be the case.

Mr. Meacher: I said, not that the limits were too low, but that they failed because there is a single national limit, albeit with a variation for central London. They fail to take into account a wide variation in gross unit costs. Does the Minister have any intention to try to make the limits reflect economic realities more closely? In the absence of that, the shoe will pinch in a number of places and I fear that there may be evictions of a number of persons whom I am sure that neither he nor the home owners wish to evict, but that is the economic reality.

Mr. Major: I understand the point on which the hon. Gentleman now enlarges. He will be aware of the special assistance, particularly for the London area, that was made in the announcements which will come into effect from 28 July. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also referred to that specific point, so I shall respond to it now.
We looked generally to see whether there are substantial regional variations. It is true that there are modest variations within regions and that will almost invariably be the case. The only area that our monitoring shows really merits a substantial increase in the limit is the Greater London area, and we have made a substantial increase in the new limits that will come into effect from 28 July.
I understand — some of the residential care home owners touched on similar points when I met them—that there are within regions areas that are noticeably more expensive than others, but it is also fair to say that if we are to retain the financial control that we are invited to retain, quite rightly, by the Select Committee, we must set relatively broad limits to ensure that residential homes do not necessarily spring up in what may well be the most expensive and not necessarily the best areas for their functions to be carried out. Therefore, I hope that we shall not face the gruesome possibilities that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of residential care homes not taking people on benefit. There have always been homes where it would not be reasonable to meet the charges at the expense of supplementary benefit and that remains the position. I emphasise that limits are not designed to meet exceptionally high charges. We could not obtain budgetary control if we did that. However, if someone has particularly serious health needs, health authorities and local authorities retain all their powers and duties to provide or to pay for care at the appropriate rate. We hope and expect and have evidence that in those special circumstances they will take up the responsibility that Parliament has invited them to accept.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon in, to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, an excellent speech, asked for a view on the suggestion by the Spastics Society that people with multiple handicaps should be entitled to the amount of benefit available to people in nursing homes even though they may not be in nursing homes but are perhaps living in residential care homes. We recognise the particular problems of this specific group. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has discussed the proposal with the Spastics


Society, but I am bound to say that supplementary benefit cannot meet all care costs however high and our local offices do not have the expertise to determine which groups need the higher levels of care. Local authorities have a role to play in the provision of care.
There are, as the hon. Gentleman will know, some topping up provisions which have given local authorities added flexibility to deal with certain people who fall in that particularly difficult area. We are hoping to have further discussions with the local authority associations and the voluntary sector on what improvements might be made to the particular difficulties faced by the group that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh spoke about regional variations and rightly had in mind the particular difficulties faced in Hampshire and in his constituency of Eastleigh. To add to the observations that I made a moment ago to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, our local office survey specifically showed that charges in the London south and London north social security regions were generally above the national average. But for most categories of home the difference was not significant. In all but one category in each region the difference was less than 10 per cent. and the clear pattern of significantly higher charges of London has not been repeated in the south generally. However, we shall keep a close watch on that, particularly in view of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax spoke rather against the light in terms of the prevailing sentiments in the debate and a speech is none the worse for having done that. He had some qualms about an assessment system and the possibility of introducing a bureaucratic straitjacket. He mentioned related problems that clearly would exist were we to move towards a specific assessment system. I hope and expect that those particular concerns will be discussed in the meetings that we have in the study group to determine how we may take the problem further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, in a typically robust speech, ranged widely across the spectrum. His core concern was on the desirability of assessment of need. I hope that he will accept that my remarks a few moments ago about the studies that we are carrying out in order to look at the problem will give him some reassurance that we fully take on board the worries that he has mentioned.
My hon. Friend also referred to the desirability of the expansion of private residential care to complement part III accommodation. I wholeheartedly endorse the way in which my hon. Friend put it. It is a substantial complementary factor to the part III accommodation which, as my hon. Friend says, now has to deal with people who often require more care than has traditionally been the case. The assistance that is provided by the residential and voluntary care sector will have been of significant assistance to those people who provide splendid care in part III accommodation.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke of the importance of the inspection of homes and related matters. He will know that local authorities have an obligation to inspect registered residential care homes at least once every 12 months, although they are encouraged to inspect them more often if they believe that to be necessary.
In addition, the health authorities have statutorily to inspect nursing homes twice every 12 months and the

authorities have the power to withdraw registrations if standards are not maintained. I emphasise that that power exists for them to use if they feel that it is necessary. I can also tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone— he may find it reassuring—that the social services inspectorate is carrying out a two-year study to see how the Registered Homes Act 1984 is being implemented, including standards in the homes. We expect its report on this important matter at the turn of the year.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of recent reports in the Yorkshire Post. He will understand if I do not refer specifically to the content of those reports. However, it is for the authorities with responsibilities to register and inspect the homes to examine those reports. In the belief that the hon. Gentleman may not have yet done so, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of those authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South spoke robustly as ever and with typical good sense. Her comments about parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West robbed me of many of the golden remarks I would otherwise have made, for which the hon. Gentleman may be thankful and the House may be grateful. My hon. Friend spoke about the need for assessment for supplementary benefit claimants. I hope that she will find my earlier remarks of some reassurance.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred to the possibility of shared rooms. I believe that I dealt with that in an intervention during his speech. I hope that he will find those remarks acceptable.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead raised a series of matters, many of which I have already dealt with. He also raised the question of the treatment of attendance allowance under the transitional protection provisions. The chief adjudication officer issued revised guidance for adjudication officers some weeks ago. Operational guidance asking local officers to review cases during the uprating exercise has also been issued. Arrears of benefit will be paid where appropriate. The regulations have now been amended to put the law back to what was originally intended. However, claimants will get the benefit of an increase in their transitional protection through the uprating addition of up to £10 which we introduced at the same time.

Mr. Frank Field: May we take it, as a result of the chief adjudication officer's decision, that all of our constituents who are in old people's homes and who claim the attendance allowance and had part of it frozen under arrangements which I understood and support will have further parts of that unfrozen as the charges of the local authority home increase and rise above the supplementary benefit level?

Mr. Major: I believe that I know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but it would be safer for me to write to him rather than mislead him or, more relevantly, mislead those outside the House who may read reports of the debate. I shall undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman within the next day or so on that point.
I believe that we have had a worthwhile and, I trust, helpful debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and I will reflect carefully on the many views expressed, especially those upon which there has been a broad consensus among those who have spoken in the debate. We are not in any way complacent about the present system and we entirely recognise the need for greater flexibility.
As I said earlier, we have in hand already an urgent programme of work for the future and we look forward to carrying it through. What is certain and quite clear is our intention. We wish to ensure that residential care is on a firm footing so that the elderly can get the care they need. We wish to ensure that there will be alternatives to the excellent care so often provided by local authorities and that the resources used for that purpose provide the best value for the community that can be obtained. I believe that those are aspirations which command widespread support, and I commend them to the House.
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

ESTIMATES 1986–87

Class VII, Vote 1

LABOUR MARKET SERVICES

Tourism

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £759,406,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on the promotion of tourism, including grants in aid, general labour market services, including a grant in aid, services for seriously disabled people and an international subscription.— [Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren).

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Estimate refers only to tourism in England. Expenditure on tourism in Scotland and Wales comes under different headings. However, in view of the fact that the Select Committee report has significant effects on tourism in Wales and in Scotland, can you advise the House whether we are debating only this class of expenditure or whether we are combining with it expenditure that refers to Wales and to Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to reflect on that for a moment or two? I shall advise him later.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be that I can be of some assistance. Hon. Members from Scotland and Wales have persuaded the Government to reject the Select Committee's recommendation which would have brought all of this expenditure under one Estimate. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether that is a point of order or helpful. Perhaps the House will allow me to reflect on the point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I beg to move,
That Class VII, Vote 1, be reduced by £500 in respect of Subhead A1(1) (Grant in Aid to the British Tourist Authority).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) for setting the tone and making sure that everybody in the House understands that we are debating tourism problems and opportunities for the whole of the United Kingdom.
In the many months during which we looked at the problems and opportunities of tourism, the Select Committee not only learnt a lot but received much help from all those engaged in that great enterprise. I think that I can speak for the whole of the Committee when I say that we found that tourism in our economy was a breath of fresh air. It is an industry of new opportunities and far horizons. However, I do not think it is inappropriate to say that nobody on the Select Committee, least of all its Chairman, which I have the honour to be, regards tourism


as a substitute for manufacturing industries. Markets and jobs have been lost because costs and quality in industry have exceeded customers' willingness to pay. Tourism must face up squarely to the fact that the need to hold on to its expansion and market opportunities will rest very much on its ability to deliver services in terms of opportunity and quality and of a size, price and sense that customers are willing to accept.
I should like to make one technical plea. Throughout our hearings we kept hearing the word "product" — a ghastly word—in relation to tourism. Tourism is about service to others. The word "service" is becoming an acceptable word once again in the English vocabulary. Pride in service to customers is a sound base on which we found many enterprises flourishing. With the permission of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) I shall refer to some of the more excellent ones that we found in the Principality.
It is essential that service should be there at all times so that tourism can expand its strong enterprise base. I should like to pay particular tribute to Mr. Duncan Bluck and the members of the British Tourist Authority, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board who, throughout our hearings, gave us every assistance. They tended to show us all the good things, and we had to look round the side to find some of the bad. However, overall I believe that we came away with a real understanding of what tourism in this country is all about.
Our elegant Clerks tried to talk the Select Committee down in the report. The Select Committee visited more than 100 sites, not just 80. We ranged from underground rivers in Northern Ireland, with Special Branch looking for mines in the river to make sure that our passage would be safe, to travelling on Snowcats in the Cairngorms in the middle of winter dressed in our city suits, much to the amazement of the skiers. In Wales, we had tea with an elegant lady, called Auntie Jean, at her mountain farmhouse, and we also sampled the disarray of the baggage pouring off the jumbo jets at Heathrow at dawn.
We recognised that tourism is about opportunities right across the United Kingdom, and it affects everybody in this country. Tourism is not just a good thing for many people; it is a hit of a bore for some. It causes problems in our cities, which the Government have to face in collaboration with local authorities and the other authorities responsible for tourism.
However, we must address ourselves to the Government's reply, because the move to reduce the vote is serious. If necessary, we may have to press it to a Division if we do not get a satisfactory response from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. However, we shall see how he copes, and whether he copes as elegantly as he has on other occasions.
Our report was published on 4 December. My trepidation about my hon. Friend's response is conditioned by the fact that it took the Government over six months to give us their reply. It is true that the grace of the Select Committee allowed them an extension beyond the 60-day period that is normally granted, but we looked forward to a strong and virile reply from my hon. Friend and from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Employment. We noted along the way their production of the document entitled "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs". We found it a little disappointing and slightly humiliating that

the Government's reply to one of our main recommendations was slipped out in the House of Lords on 27 February, when we were told that that recommendation was not acceptable to the Government. The fact that it was unacceptable would not have been so bad, but it went against convention, and there was not even a nice little letter to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry explaining what the Government were going to do. We are an understanding crowd until we find that other people are unkind to us. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the fact that there is a convention, and it would be helpful if it were followed at all times, not just for the Select Committee on Trade arid Industry, but for all Select Committees.
I should like to explain why the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is tackling the debate, not our elegant brothers in the Select Committee on Employment. It is merely because, during Government reorganisation, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tried to slip away from Trade and Industry to Employment and leave us high and dry studying tourism. However, we were able to persuade the powers that be that he should not get away with that and that we would still be after him shouting tally-ho, as we are tonight.
Her Majesty's Government's reply is disappointing, bearing in mind the strong quality of Ministers and civil servants whom we met during our inquiry, who were dedicated and eager to make a success of the growing tourism industry. I thought that there might be three reasons for that. First, they were uncertain how to answer the questions where answers could not be avoided. We did not study Sunday trading, but I have no doubt that tonight some hon. Members will wish to question whether that should have been included in the reply.
Secondly, I wondered whether they were stopped in their tracks by the Treasury, as so many enterprises that should be pursued are stopped nowadays by that awesome hand. That would be a pity. The Government are dedicated to the enterprise culture and looking for new opportunities for employment, so there are times when they cannot avoid being the entrepreneur. They must twist the arm of the Treasury so that it does not hold up the progress that is being called for at all levels of Government.
Thirdly, I wondered whether the Government were worried by the size of the challenge presented to them. When I look at the response on education needs, it seems to me that three or four agencies are being cobbled together to act as an answer rather than there being a dedicated policy recognising how much training there needs to be in all the opportunities that tourism presents, such as hotel management, catering, transportation, and so on, and understanding the scale of enterprise and education that is required to take advantage of the opportunities.
The Government's reply shows that perhaps they still have not understood the lack of rationale that one has found so frequently in the way in which the Government deploy their resources for stimulating tourism. After all, tourism is big business. It now employs more than I million people. It is a much larger employer than the electrical and instrument engineering, mechanical engineering, transport, equipment, chemicals and manmade fibres, paper, printing and publishing industries. All those industries employ fewer people than are known to be currently working in tourism. The contribution to our


gross domestic product is now approaching £10,000 million a year. It is the biggest single industry in this country, exceeded only by the oil extraction and natural gas industry, which I think everyone will agree is not atypical of industry. Tourism is a big business opportunity, which the Government must measure up to rather than just turn away from some of the home truths that we produced in our report, which sells at the reasonable price of £5·40, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although complimentary copies are available to you.
Tourism's contribution to the gross domestic product also shows the tremendous number of people who visit this country. In our report, we drew attention to the visits by overseas residents to the United Kingdom, excluding our own people going backwards and forwards to the seaside, visiting the Tower of London, the fens or Scotland. Whereas in 1973 there were about 8 million visits to this country, now there are over 12 million, which is more than 50 per cent. higher. Perhaps some of the birds have stayed on their roosts in the United States of America, although the word "chicken" would not occur to me.
The industry has grown rapidly. The Government might be good enough to consider whether they have recognised the dimension of that growth. With respect, perhaps they will have a second look at their reply to see whether it matches the opportunities that are available.
The rationale problem is real. Let me refer to the aid distributed round the country. Hon. Members from the Principality and Scotland will cheer lustily when I say that they do very much better than the bulk of people in the other part of the United Kingdom called England, which produces most of the income from tourism. The latest data available to the Select Committee showed tourist spending in England approaching £8,000 million a year out of the £10,000 million spent in the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland had nearly £1 billion and Wales £500 million, although I am sure that it is all well spent.
In the report we draw attention to the amount of Government aid. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was instrumental in producing that part of the report. Government funding is in no way related to spending. One can argue that where spending is low, it is better to spend more money on investment. On the other hand, where the spending is high one would expect Government support to reflect in some way the amount of money being spent.

Mr. Wigley: Were the Committee's recommendations in relation to Wales and Scotland geared towards improving the performance of tourism in Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Warren: From my experience'of visiting large parts of the Principality and of the northern kingdom, I and the Committee found little to criticise there. Indeed, we found more to criticise in England.
That brings me back to the rationale. The investment needs to go to the places where the money is being spent to raise the quality. The performance in Wales, particularly at an excellent hotel that we stayed at in Llandudno, which exceeded anything that one would ever find in London, is evidence and justification of what I am suggesting to the House.
In England, tourist spending is about £8,000 million per year, yet Government funding is only one thousandth of

that at £8·6 million a year. The ratios in Scotland and Wales are five to seven times higher than that in terms of income from tourism. The Government must tackle this problem of rationale. Tourism is a big business producing £10,000 million a year. It makes no sense not to consider the income and how the industry can be incited to grow more rapidly. The return on investment in Scotland and Wales is very reasonable, but I am pleading for a rationale. I am not asking for cuts in enterprise or investment in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am slightly reassured by the final comment made by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren). However, he will appreciate that in the part of the country that I represent, the highlands and islands of Scotland, for reasons of geography the degree of investment compared with the return will always be more unfavourable than it would be in Edinburgh or in London. The same argument can apply to Wales.
I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to learn that I spoke to a friend in London this afternoon who had just returned by car ferry from France. He told me that on the maps handed out by the British car ferry company, no routes are shown north of Carlisle. That is very worrying, and it acts as a disincentive.

Mr. Warren: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will have noticed, as he hares south to Westminster, that there are no signs indicating London on any motorway north of Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recognise that the ratios are so adverse against investment in England that the Government must take action, although we do not believe that there should be a decrease in investment in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
One of our essential recommendations—almost like casting a fly across Whitehall waters—is that it would be a good idea to abolish the tourist boards. Quangos are not popular on this side of the House although they may be popular elsewhere in the House. However, we thought that abolishing the tourist boards was a good idea not simply because change would be a good thing in itself but because Britain is the only country in Europe—the only country in the world, according to our survey—which has separate tourist authorities carrying out the same function. In France, a tourist would visit the French national tourist board, and the same applies in Switzerland or Italy. Those countries have a single tourist authority. I hope that the Government will face the need to rationalise the unusual position in Britain. In the same way, I think that it is about time that we had a United Kingdom football team competing in the World Cup.

Mr. Wigley: No way.

Mr. Warren: I recognise that that view is not shared by some hon. Members representing Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, the Select Committee and I want to bring the best to bear on the opportunities available. Before the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, who is representing the whole of Scotland in this debate tonight by the look of it, challenges my view—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What about me?

Mr. Warren: I apologise to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I meant also to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley).
Before anyone challenges my idea, I hope they recognise that the Scottish Tourist Board is allowed by the British Tourist Authority to spend only £200,000 a year on advertising abroad. Furthermore, no one in Wales is allowed to advertise abroad unless they have the authority of the BTA. I hope that Ministers, especially the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, will recognise that the Select Committee report represents an opportunity for them to gang up against my unfortunate friends who represent English interests in the Cabinet in relation to tourism. That was the fly that was floated across Whitehall waters, but again it was not snatched eagerly by the Government.
The Select Committee has tried to bring a kind of rationale to the tourist industry and its relationship with the Government. The Select Committee made 37 recommendations to the Government to review and report back to the House. I would not dream of recounting all 37, as many other hon. Members wish to speak tonight.
I should like to comment on one or two of those recommendations as I represent a coastal constituency which has many problems in trying to develop tourism. Members of the Select Committee who visited Hastings and other areas found a common theme: that change was required to develop opportunities for generating tourism.
We welcome the opportunity for the development of tourism in the industrial heritage of Britain which spawned the industrial revolution. It was good to see that old factories and waterways are not being destroyed but are being renovated and retained as symbols of the start of the industrial revolution. However, when we saw how other enterprises, such as museums, were maintained, it came as a surprise to us to discover that the Government—even though they were often a source of funds for museums—are content to allow the local authorities running the museums to decide when they should be open. Tourists wanted to visit museums on Saturdays and Sundays and many were not open at those times.
We were conscious of the fact that some large enterprises carried enormous muscle in getting loans and aid from tourist authorities to generate new business in tourism. We came across a hotel which had received £300,000 from the taxpayer with no pay-back required. The company which owned the hotel could have afforded to borrow that sum from a bank. In another case, a bigger and more beautiful swimming pool had been built. We learnt that the swimming pool was built with Government funds, even though there were plans to build it before the grant was made available. Needless to say, we all enjoyed our swim.
I am not frowning on people who have had such success. Indeed, I must tell the House that we believe in sampling tourism at every opportunity. I do not condemn success in obtaining grants, but in many cases there was not the rationale which we sought through the Select Committee report and which we looked for in the Government response.
The Select Committee thought that a loans system would be a good idea. There should be a limit on grants so that more people can share in the opportunity to get the money that is available, and the money should be recycled as new investment in further tourist ventures. The

Government replied that that could not be done through the high street banks. We think that is nonsense. After all, the banks are capable of lending money anyway. I fail to understand why they cannot act as Government agents in this case as they do on loan guarantee schemes. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me on that point.
We were also concerned about the basic quality of education and management which is available. I would like to pay a small tribute—it is never too late to do so —to my late hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, Mr. Martin Stevens, who put so much effort into the educational and training aspects of the report. There seemed to be too much variation in the Government's reply on the quality of knowledge about careers advice in tourism. Several agencies were involved, but concentration would be more sensible.
On classification schemes for hotels and catering, it was disappointing that the Government did not appreciate in their response that it would be a good thing to have their heavy hand ready, if necessary, as is the case in so many continental countries, to ensure that classification takes place. Although one welcomes voluntary schemes —the one in Scotland is very good—it would be valuable to have the Government pushing hotels and catering establishments towards a common scheme. That has not proved impossible in any other country of which I have knowledge, and it is long overdue here.
I shall not dwell on the licensing laws or the shops legislation, save to say that in peripheral areas such legislation or lack of it nullifies many endeavours, especially in coastal areas where the tourist season is far too short to make the necessary killing to bring wealth and employment to the community and establishments need to be able to open at the right time to take advantage of the tourist trade.
In terms of regional grant, local authorities need far more Government help in recognising that it is not just a matter of "night visitors". Day trippers are very expensive to entertain, taking up a great deal of local authority time and investment for a relatively small return. It is high time that the Government acknowledged that the peripheral resorts, as well as some of those in the centre, should have recognition in terms of grant from the Department of the Environment for what they are doing for the rest of the country and encouraging the invisible export of tourism.

Mr. Robert Banks: Would my hon. Friend include among resorts those towns which specialise in drawing conference trade? This is a great problem in Harrogate. The conference centre costs our ratepayers a great deal of money and brings a great number of people not just to the town but to Yorkshire generally. However, we cannot get the formula for grant-related expenditure to take account of this and enable the town to flourish.

Mr. Warren: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, whose devotion to the tourist cause in Harrogate is well known. I pay tribute to the valuable document that he produced during our study. Indeed, recommendations Nos. 20 to 22 refer to business and conference tourism as a new opportunity. What has been done in Harrogate, Bournemouth, Brighton, and now at the Queen Elizabeth hall, represents a style that must be enhanced, but this can be done only with direct and indirect Government help. The Government must recognise the value of those facilities both to the community and to the Treasury.
Another recommendation relates to tourist information centres. I am glad that the Government intend to do something about this aspect. I hope that bodies such as the British Airports Authority and the ports authorities will ensure that information centres are so strategically placed that tourists actually pass them and that leaflets will be available. One that we sampled had nothing available other than advertisements for day trips to France, which did not seem a very good idea. Whatever one thinks of the Channel tunnel enterprise — personally I support it—tourists going in and out of that hole in the ground will expect to be welcomed and to know, when they come up and sniff the beautiful air of Kent or Sussex, where they can go from there and how they can do so as speedily and pleasantly as possible.
The problems of tourism in London are well known, but the response of authorities such as Westminster city council has been disappointing. I hope that the Government will get together with local authorities in the capital to ensure that there are adequate facilities for coach parking rather than just shunting the problem back as something that local authorities ought to deal with. The whole of London — indeed, the whole country — is affected if one cannot get around the streets in a timely and reasonable manner.
A particular concern relating to the way in which the Government look after tourists entering and leaving the country was illustrated during our visit to Cardiff airport. We heard, to our dismay, that one day in the early spring of last year every other airport in western Europe was closed but the stacks of jumbo jets could not land at Cardiff, where they would have been good revenue earners, because Customs and Excise had not been alerted 24 hours in advance. The vagaries of the weather men, let alone the weather, do not often bring such a chance twice. The responsiveness of Customs and Excise needs to be much more real and imaginative—I dread the next time I try to get through the green channel having said that —and not tied to outdated rule books probably devised in the days of the stage coach.
Finally, throughout our study we found that tourism was a good symbol of United Kingdom enterprise, a creator of new enterprise and new opportunities for wealth and employment, bringing wealth and new life to our coasts, our cities and our countryside—and long may it prosper. I commend the amendment to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should put beyond doubt the matter raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). It will have become clear during the speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee that the debate will cover England, Scotland and Wales. I am glad to confirm that the promotion of tourism in all those places may be discussed in the debate.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to be called so unexpectedly early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me therefore be the first to welcome the opportunity of this debate and of the debates which followed publication of the Select Committee report. Although I do not agree entirely with the analysis by the Chairman of the Select Committee, for territorial

reasons which he may well appreciate, the report provoked a debate which was healthy in itself and generated a useful debate in the Scottish press and among Members of Parliament for Scotland.

Mr. Wigley: And Wales.

Mr. Kennedy: And Wales. It raised the whole profile of tourism, which was most helpful and constructive.
Having said that, for once I find myself complimenting the Government on their response to the Select Committee with regard to the retention of the Scottish Tourist Board. I join the Chairman of the Select Committee in deploring the manner in which the manner in which the Government chose to issue their response, but many of us were extremely relieved at the view that they took.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As there is no other Liberal Member and no Member at all from the SDP in the Chamber for this important debate, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he speaks on behalf of the Liberal party or merely on his own behalf, and whether he also speaks on behalf of the wholly absent SDP?

Mr. Kennedy: I am happy to set the record straight. I am a Member of the SDP.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Good heavens!

Mr. Kennedy: On this occasion my particular interest is as a Member representing the highlands and islands of Scotland. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will listen to my reply to his question. In political terms, the highlands and islands speak with a united voice, having two Liberal Members of Parliament and two SDP Members. The hon. Gentleman may take it, therefore, that on this issue I speak for my three hon. Friends completely.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman is confirming that he is the spokesman for the Liberal party, is he?

Mr. Kennedy: That is rather obvious. I speak on behalf of the alliance in this debate, in the same way as, under the conventions and time constraints of the House in the earlier debate, a Liberal Member spoke on behalf of the SDP and the Liberal party.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I think that that is enough. I want to come to more substantive issues.

Mr. Crowther: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is concerned with tourism and not with party matters. We are discussing the promotion of tourism.

Mr. Crowther: I hope to bring the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) back to the point that he was making before he was interrupted. I wonder whether hon. Members properly understand the recommendation in the Select Committee report on this matter. When it was printed, I pointed out that there was a misprint — although nothing was done about it—in recommendation (2)(c), which states:
the creation of boards, for the promotion, within the UK, of tourism in each region of England, of Scotland and of Wales"—
but which should read,
in each region of England, in Scotland and in Wales".
In other words, we were proposing a board for each of the English regions, a board for the whole of Scotland and a


board for the whole of Wales, each of them exercising similar powers, responsibilities and duties. I think that that recommendation has not been properly understood.

Mr. Kennedy: That is a very different proposition indeed. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, the remit of the boards, both regional and national, would not extend to international promotion. The hon. Gentleman is nodding, and I must tell him that I am concerned about that. In Scotland we are rather zealous in guarding some of the promotional ability that we enjoy abroad, not necessarily in tourism, but with such projects as the Locate in Scotland Bureau and the Scottish Development Agency.

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hard evidence demonstrates that Scotland has been treated badly in respect of tourism promotion in international markets?

Mr. Kennedy: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am concerned about international promotion of the highlands because, for example, it is easy in Tokyo to find out that one can fly to London, but one is not told that it takes only another one and a quarter hours to get to the highlands of Scotland. Therefore, even though the hon. Gentleman and I may be happier about the revised version, we remain unhappy about international promotion.
I had not expected so many interventions in what I thought would he a fairly non-controversial speech. As I know other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall move on swiftly.
In January the Paymaster General set out some of the additional steps that the Government were taking—and they were referred to in the Government's response—on an organisational basis through co-ordination at ministerial level of tourism as a whole. The priority that the Government are giving to that is welcome, and I
However, several points of concern remain. The first ranges across a variety of Government Departments and public concerns, and was reflected both in the Select Committee report and in the speech of its Chairman. Rather like the National Health Service, where too often we think only about decisions by the Minister for Health and not about decisions of Ministers in other Departments, such as Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which have health implications, tourism can also be greatly affected by decisions in other Departments. I welcome the greater degree of integration, which I hope will lead to greater emphasis on tourism and to the projection and promotion of tourism as a whole.
I referred earlier to the non-publicity for air connections to Scotland, especially the highlands. We are not satisfied that international promotion is making people aware that, having flown into a major international airport such as London, it is easy to take the next short hop to the highlands. The Civil Aviation Authority has put forward a proposal, which requires the approval of the Department of Transport, to change the pattern of flights out of Inverness away from Heathrow and into Gatwick. That would have serious consequences for inward investment, tourism and business. At least the Government's approach allows Ministers in other Departments to have their say about the implications for

their Departments of something that is essentially a transport matter, and I welcome that thrust of Government policy.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: On two occasions the hon. Gentleman has laboured the point that the British Tourist Authority office in Tokyo tells inquirers about flights to London, but not beyond. Does he accept that if the principal recommendation of the Select Committee had been accepted, a future office in Tokyo would have come under the British Tourist Board and, under that recommendation, would have absorbed not only the current international tourist interest but a far greater involvement in domestic tourism, thereby possibly meeting the hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr. Kennedy: I obviously realise the potential on paper of that argument, but on a variety of issues experience north of the border — I speak not as a political nationalist, but as a nationalistic Scot —has taught us that the best laid schemes somehow do not work out in practice. What is presumed would happen does not happen in the way that we would wish.
Both the Select Committee's report and the Government's response refer to the Government's recognition of the importance of obtaining a good mix between the public and the private sectors inmarketing many of the facilities of tourism. That is a sensible policy. I echo what Dr. Pattison, the chief executive of the Scottish Tourist Board, said about the public sector exercising a prime pumping function to catalyse growth. That sensible emphasis is most welcome.
I can cite the example, which I have mentioned to the Minister previously, of a project in my constituency that involves the possible construction of a mountain railway and ski slopes on Ben Wyvis. That would achieve something that the Select Committee was anxious to achieve—an extension of the parameters of the present tourist season in that area. In that sense, the proposal would be welcome. I believe that it contains the right mix for public and private sector capital. Obviously, the proposal presents exciting opportunities for the highlands, and we- may well hear more about that. Also, it has implications for employment which are not insignificant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I appreciate, as I am sure other hon. Members do, that the hon. Gentleman has been extremely kind and generous in allowing so many interventions. It is important that I intervene at this stage. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) intervened earlier. What he said made me think, and perhaps it will be quoted in later speeches. The matter is of direct relevance to those who may be fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who represent constituencies in Wales and Scotland. I think that it is quite clear what the report says in its summary of conclusions and recommendations. I think that what is printed is precisely what the Select Committee intended to say.

Mr. Crowther: No, it is not.

Mr. Trippier: I must intervene at this stage because it may be appropriate for the hon. Member for Rotherham, who may be fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make that clear. There is a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, and certainly between him and me.

Mr. Kennedy: I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion about the interpretation and exactitude of the words that have been used in the report. Given that there is such a difference, I hope that it will be teased a little further during the debate. The Minister will appreciate that I have tried to respond to what I thought was the position. I have also given a further response to the redefined position that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) put forward. I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. There have been quite a number of interventions. I shall not prolong the issue any further.
I welcome the fact that the Select Committee took time, in considering the problem almost internationally, to get down to the nitty-gritty of some issues. I was pleased that the Committee highlighted the issue of signposting. The north of Scotland is cursed by the constraints that are applied on local authorities and private developers in erecting signposts and direction indicators.
The hon. Lady the present Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told us in a debate several years ago, when she was a Transport Minister, that experiments would be carried out. Experiments were carried out in two parts of England, and steps were taken as a result. The brown road signs in the north of Scotland for bypass communities, and so on, are absolutely hopeless. They do not tempt anyone to follow a tourist route. The Government tell us that they are keeping the matter under review. I hope that they will be sympathetic to those who are sick and tired of not being able to get a sign up when they want to indicate to people that they can turn off the road and find a facility. Communities such as those off the A9 in the north of Scotland which find themselves bypassed have only the consolation of a sign that would not tempt people to turn their motor car off the road and explore the area. I do not think that the signs are good enough.
I know that the Scottish Office has an input in that respect. I have argued the matter with the relevant Minister. This debate provides a further opportunity to do so. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I hope that he will endorse the sense of frustration that I have for the inadequate signposting that his Department is putting up in the highlands of Scotland. I hope that he can do something about it. Many matters are to be debated. I welcome such debates. From the earlier interventions, the debate looks as though it will be slightly more controversial over the exact meaning of the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Gary Waller: Although tourism employs over 1 million people in this country and makes a vital contribution to the economy, unfortunately its image is not a good one. People in manufacturing industry tend to look down their noses at the services sector, and tourism comes so low down that it is almost touching the floor. Tourism has an uneasy relationship with manufacturing in areas such as Bradford and Keighley which are steeped in textiles and metal-hashing. We still have a job on our hands to persuade people that a belief in the importance of tourism does not reduce one's commitment to the view that this country cannot prosper unless its manufacturing industry is strong.
The latter belief is, I think, self-evident, but it is also a fact that a strong economy is a balanced economy. One of the reasons why many parts of the north of England have

suffered so much from unemployment in recent years is that, in common with other regions, we have been dependent on manufacturing. A satisfactory balance between manufacturing and services provides greater flexibility, which enables the slack to be taken up when there is a downturn in the economy.
Much of my constituency is fortunate enough to be served by a newspaper, the Keighley News, which has earned respect because it takes important political issues seriously, even though its editorial policy differs from my own in many respects. Like myself, the newspaper believes that the importance of the manufacturing industry is paramount. I believe that tourism, in its widest sense— the Select Committee pointed out that tourism can include people who are predominantly involved in making visits in connection with their work—can make a significant contribution, while the newspaper regards it of no significance whatsoever. Part of the reason is that it is difficult to quantify employment that flows from the tourist industry. Even the Department of Employment has difficulty in assessing how many people owe their jobs to it, because they are scattered here and there in small units, including retail and catering establishments. However, if it were taken away we would soon recognise the difference.
A distinction is rightly drawn between overnight stays and day trips. There may be justifiable cause for complaint when visitors go to a relatively compact area, such as the south Pennines, as day trippers, imposing extra burdens on local services, but not staying overnight and bringing the extra benefit to the economy that would result. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, in its report "Tourism in the UK", stated in paragraph 117:
We recommend that Government investigates immediately whether the impact of tourism expenditure, particularly from day visitors, is adequately taken into account in the grant related expenditure allocation to local authorities.
In their response, the Government admitted that the data on visitor nights which are used in recreation and environmental health GRE allocations were collected during the 1970s. That information is out of date, especially for an area such as Bradford where there has been a big change in recent years, with a new emphasis on tourism that did not previously exist.
The Government state that a more up-to-date system will he considered for possible use in 1987–88, taking account also of a national survey of British leisure day trips undertaken by the tourist boards in co-operation with the Department of Employment. I urge strongly that a firm decision is made to use more up-to-date facts which take account of the growth in tourism in areas such as west Yorkshire, and especially the incidence of day trips. We are losing out in our grant-related expenditure allocation. That will continue unless adequate allowance is made.
When the Local Government Act 1985, which abolished the metropolitan county councils, was completing its passage through Parliament, we heard a great deal about the funding problems that would be experienced by the regional tourist boards. I believe that those fears proved to be unfounded. While there was undoubtedly a period of uncertainty, the issue has been satisfactorily resolved.
The involvement of metropolitan county councils in tourist activities created a great deal of overlap. For a tourist attraction in my area to have to rely on not only the English tourist board but also the west Yorkshire


metropolitan county council—which no longer exists—the Bradford district council and the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board to market its attractions, involved a great deal of wasteful effort and expenditure. Although there is still some joint marketing by the districts in west Yorkshire, Bradford people are far better placed to publicise the attractions of the area and their tourist and recreational activities than an authority based some distance away in Wakefield.
Bradford has led the way regionally and nationally in developing its tourist potential, and it has broken a few myths along the route. It is entirely appropriate that Bradford should be one of the four or five areas where the English tourist board has established a tourist development action programme involving a substantial industrial heritage element.
The principal vehicle for tourism development projects is the use of section 4 grants. It is intended that they should be provided only when there is an element of additionality —when the projects would not be embarked on if the grant were not forthcoming. It is difficult to test the validity of such a proposition, but when a grant is offered to one hotel project rather than another in the same area it is difficult to defend such distortion of the market unless one has some basis for the distinction. I know of at least one entrepreneur in my area who is making a good go of it despite having been refused a section 4 grant for no very obvious reason.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is making a valuable point, but a major recommendation of our Committee was that the Government pay 30 per cent. of the cost of extending the season by one month, whether at the beginning, the end or both. It must be truly additional. The PAYE returns would show when each establishment was open the previous season. Does my hon. Friend support that recommendation, which the Government have not seen their way to support?

Mr. Waller: That is an interesting suggestion. There is a need to extend the period during which tourists visit Britain, but it is paramount that money invested in the industry, whether through section 4 grants or otherwise, should show a proper benefit. I am reluctant to accept distortions in the market. By and large, I prefer investment to go into infrastructure projects which have an effect throughout the tourist industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopf: Does my hon. Friend consider that to be a distortion? Prolonging the season would mean getting better value for the money invested in infrastructure. Is it a distortion for the Government to provide money so that entrepreneurs can, with 70 per cent. of their own money, discover whether the public will respond to an extension of the season?

Mr. Waller: That is an interesting point. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to develop it, perhaps in his own speech.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is in the report.

Mr. Waller: I shall be very interested to hear what my hon. Friend says.
There should be some rationalisation to take account of the fact that the Department of the Environment, which has no direct responsibility for tourism, controls more than 50 per cent. of development funding spent on it by the Government, when one takes into account grants from

the European regional development fund. The system by which those resources are disbursed is somewhat unsatisfactory and amounts to a sort of charade whereby certain schemes are tailored to meet the criteria established by the Commission to recycle taxpayers' money into the economy.
Thus, the spending of £8 million on the remodelling and modernisation of the Alhambra theatre in Bradford was justified partly because we could not possibly turn down £2 million which was described as being "from Europe." The Alhambra theatre is complete and undoubtedly an asset to Bradford, and there is now no point in becoming involved in an argument about whether it represents good value for money, although £8 million is a great deal of money. There is, however, something nonsensical about the process by which such projects are assessed.
The Alhambra should teach us another lesson. Nobody who visits it could doubt that, internally, it is marvellously equipped, but tourism demands a high quality of service for visitors. Although the staff are courteous and helpful, I have heard repeated reports of tables piled high with dirty plates, mediocre food, but one typed and tatty menu for the use of all diners and people waiting 40 minutes to be served. It is not surprising that one of my informants told me of the complaints made by a party of Americans at the table next to her. First impressions are important, and if that is what happens I am afraid that people are not likely to come back for more.
One might say that Bradford council should have considered offering the catering service in its new showpiece theatre for tender to the private sector. I am afraid, however, that that is riot the type of radical step that we are likely to have with an administration at the city hall which recently put before ratepayers a programme which would have required an increase of more than 70 per cent. in the rates.
We must also pay more attention to the needs of visitors to different parts of the United Kingdom when erecting signposts, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said. I noted his comments about the efficacy of the white-on-brown signposts, but Ministers in the Department of Transport reported in April that the experiment with such signposts for tourist attractions had been a success. Irrespective of colour, there is a great deal of potential for the use of nevi signs.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have I suffered a sudden defect of eyesight, or have we no Minister on the Front Bench listening to the debate, only the duty Whip?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me, but he has drawn the Government's attention to the position.

Mr. Waller: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Get a Minister immediately.

Mr. Waller: Many visitors travel by train.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Get a Minister immediately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Waller: It is important that British Rail should go out of its way to make it easier for people who are not used to travelling by train in Britain to find their way around the system. Everybody agrees that, in view of


overcrowding in London, it is important to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly throughout Britain. In the 1990s, it seems likely that many visitors will arrive via the Channel tunnel. British Rail is already planning to introduce a link between the tunnel and the north-west which avoids a change of station in central London by following a route through Olympia and Willesden. Much of the latent opposition to the Channel tunnel in Yorkshire and the north-east can be mitigated by ensuring that there is a link to the east coast main line as well, although that presents greater difficulty. That should be a priority for British Rail, and I hope that Ministers in the Department of Transport will take an interest in the matter.
The Select Committee drew attention to the possible use of investing funds earmarked for tourism into outstanding rail routes. Among them, the Settle to Carlisle line stands out a mile. Since British Rail started to market it again, the number of people using it has increased tremendously and some stations that have closed are opening again this summer in connection with the Dalesrail venture. In the past few months, the relevant transport users consultative committees have been looking into BR's closure proposals. Although statute provides that such investigations are supposed to take only cases of hardship into account, I know that the excellent chairman of the transport users consultative committee for the north-east, Mr. James Towler, has interpreted the matter somewhat widely. I hope that we can agree that the continued and enhanced use of the line could generate new jobs for many people and that the loss of such jobs would constitute hardship.
Tourist earnings count as an invisible export. Tourism is undervalued because nobody sees the work force streaming into work at the beginning of the day and out again in the evening as they would at a factory, but it is important. It employs more than 1 million people. We should not undervalue it. I hope that we shall put increasing emphasis on it.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I must take up the suggestion made by the Minister earlier and try to clarify the real meaning of paragraph 2(c) of the recommendations made in the first report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which has caused some dismay. As I mentioned earier, the word "of" repeated in the second line should be "in". I took that up on the day that the report was launched. I discussed it with the Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), and with the Clerk to the Committee. It was understood that an erratum slip would be issued, but apparently it was not. I am worried that this has led to so much misunderstanding. I repeat that the intention of the recommendation was that there should be a board in Scotland, a board in Wales and a board in each of the English regions exercising identical powers. I hope that that is now clear.
I shall mention only two or three of the matters brought out in the report. For far too long it has been assumed in many quarters that some parts of the country are suitable for tourism and other parts are not. In the report we tried hard to dispel that myth. Nowhere in Britain could tourism not be developed to the great benefit of the local economy. Many local authorities in the older industrial

areas—I include Rotherham—have been too slow in the past to recognise the potential of tourism for economic growth and job generation.
In following the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) I must say that Bradford city council is an exception. Bradford, along with Sheffield and some other councils, has recognised the importance of tourism and is doing something about it. I am pleased that other councils are beginning to catch up. I do not pretend for a minute that tourism can compensate for the appalling loss of jobs in areas such as mine, although it can make a contribution — [Interruption.] I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would allow me to continue my speech.
Tourism can make a contribution to the local economy by bringing new money into an area to the benefit of many service industries, especially the retail and the licensed trades, on which I shall comment later. All this requires a conscious effort. It does not happen by accident. It comes down, in the end, to the local authorities showing a little imagination and then making a firm decision to take tourism seriously. They must accept that things on the local scene which they have taken for granted for years may be of great interest to visitors, especially to American visitors, who are always fascinated by the fact that our history goes back so much further than theirs.
Those things must be exploited, but it all needs organisation. As hon. Members have said, that exploitation needs a good local transport system, adequate car parking, a well-thought-out system of signposting and attention paid to the general attractiveness of the street scene, to cleanliness and to landscaping. When all that has been done, it needs proper promotion in conjunction with the tourist boards. All that costs money. It should be considered as an investment but, unfortunately, the Department of the Environment will consider it merely as an item of revenue expenditure. That can cause problems for authorities which already face the threat of grant penalties or even rate capping.
As the report stated, the Government must consider tourism seriously. If they are to do something about tourism on the scale that we want, and if the authorities are willing to take their share of the work, the Government must show a sense of responsibility by making proper allowances for it in the grant-related expenditure assessment and in the rate support grant settlement. That is vital if we are to make any progress.
I mentioned earlier that an influx of tourists can contribute to the licensed trade in an area. That is mentioned in the report. People cannot spend money in a pub that is not open. The Government agree in their response that there is a need for reform, and their point has been proved, but they say that the problem is to find an opportunity to put the reform into the legislative programme. They must find the legislative time. I do not know why that should be a problem. They have decided to leave water alone, so let them turn their attention to the stronger liquids. There must be plenty of time in the next session for the matter to be dealt with adequately.
I am surprised that the Government got things wrong in the present session. Why on earth did they bring in the silly Shops Bill, which was bound to arouse enormous controversy, and which in the end was thrown out, instead of bringing in a sensible reform of the licensing laws, which they would have got through without much difficulty? That is now all in the past. As I have said, the opportunity


will be there next session to do something about this issue. If they will not deal with water, let them deal with beer. I hope that we shall see that legislation in the next session.
Our report has not had as warm a welcome from the Government as I would have hoped. Nevertheless, it has been a useful study. We have made many recommendations, and—who knows?—over the years, many of them may be implemented.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Just as Mrs. Worthington has, since time immemorial, been urged not to put her daughter on the stage, so most hon. Members here this evening will know that, until recently, to become actively involved in the tourist industry in the broad, especially in hotels, was, to some extent, lacking in respectability. I am delighted to say that that is no longer the case. It is now understood that the tourist industry offers an opportunity for growth and employment. That must be a good thing to discover in a period when not too many growth areas confront us.
I speak at a time when tourism is very much in the public eye, not, I regret to say, because we are in a period —as we have been for the past five or six years—of expansion of tourism, but because in 1986, for various reasons, the number of tourists from the United States appears to have fallen considerably.
In 1986, there is no likelihood that we shall get back the tourists who changed their minds early and booked in groups to visit other places. Yet I wonder whether it is not a good thing that the constant expansion of tourism, which we had almost started to take for granted, has been arrested this year. I do not know whether it is because of the value of the dollar, the Chernobyl nuclear fallout, or terrorism—although I am told by all and sundry that that is the basic reason—but I know that, as the tourist industry has been expanding during recent years, there has been a tendency to take incoming tourists a little for granted. I wonder whether, at the heart of the reduction this year, there is not, to some small extent, an implication that the hotel industry and many other tourist interests have in recent years not been as caring as they might have been. That is just one observation I make, because the debate comes at an important and interesting time.
Some references are made in the report to investment in tourism projects. As one who has some connections with the City of London, I must say that until recently the average City institution would not touch a tourism project with the proverbial bargepole. I have always thought that that was not only a pity, but that it was rather shortsighted.
Just as tourism has become more respectable as a means of employment, so I detect a sign that investment in tourism by the City is becoming more acceptable. I welcome that and hope that it will develop, not only in the theme park areas, to which City attention has already been directed, but to areas for which the Committee discovered little provision—for example, two and three-star hotels in London. There is no doubt that London is well-served by luxury hotels and that many hoarding houses and one-star hotels exist on the periphery, if not close to the centre, but the lack of two and three-star hotel accommodation, to which the Committee drew attention, is something which I hope will be remedied by investment, not least

from the City. I learnt today that there are proposals to develop hotels in Greenwich and in the docklands area, and I welcome that prospect.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my saying that the Government's response to the Select Committee's report is, to say the least, disappointing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), the Chairman of the Select Committee, that the speed with which the principal recommendation for a major shake-up in the administration of tourism was rejected was mildly insulting to the considerable thought that went into that report.
I did not expect the recommendation to be acceptable, especially in Scotland and Wales, and, of course, I was not disappointed. However, I was a little surprised that the Government allowed themselves to be subjected to what was evidently considerable pressure from Scotland and Wales to the extent that, well in advance of responding to the other recommendations, they felt it necessary, mildly surreptitiously, to reject the recommendation. I adhere unashamedly to that recommendation. I must tell the Minister that, if we are ever to get tourism on to the same organisational basis as it is in other countries, and to take maximum advantage of its potential, the suggestion of a British tourist board, in one form or another, is an idea whose day will yet come.
The Scottish and Welsh representations misunderstood to some extent the fact that they were to be redirected in their tourist efforts. There should be a British tourist hoard with two arms, one arm to attract tourists, not to Scotland or to Wales, but to Britain, and the other arm to try to maximise the tourism potential within the United Kingdom, not just Wales or Scotland. I must tell the Minister that the speed with which he rejected that recommendation, and the Government's complete failure to recognise that there may be something not absolutely right with the structure of the administration of tourism, is a defect on the part of his Department.
Some time ago I noted a movement in the general direction of the recommendation, in that the chairman of the English tourist board and of the British Tourist Authority had become one and the same person. That could be projected further. The British tourism effort would have been advanced considerably had the basic recommendation been accepted.
The other recommendation made by the Committee which was treated in a cavalier fashion was the suggestion that, to extend the season of tourist activities, there should be some financial inducement. I am prepared to listen to any alternative suggestion which the Government believe is more suited to achieving that objective than the Committee's proposal.
It is distressing that nowhere in the Government's report is there a recognition that some Government assistance might be justified in this area. It may be needed for only one year. It may only be a question of keeping open tourist interests for a little longer. To reject the Committee's suggestion, and seemingly to put nothing in its place, is to underrate the importance of extending the season of tourist operations. I hope that the Minister's reply will be a little more forthcoming than the Government's response to the recommendation by the Select Committee.
I have no inherent wish to see a bureaucracy develop to classify hotels. However, I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that foreigners, especially Europeans,


coming to this country are distressed to discover that whereas they can look in the bedrooms of hotels in, for example, Spain or France, to ascertain the classification of that hotel, in Britain there is no sign to that effect other than those provided in the semi-voluntary schemes of the AA and RAC. Visitors to Britain have a right to expect that there will be some sign of the quality of the hotel that they propose to use, without having the confusion of three stars from the AA or RAC being equivalent to five crowns in another scheme.
If the Government do not believe that they have a responsibility to introduce a classification system — I would accept that—I hope that they understand that, at the very least, they should introduce some sanctions to encourage a much wider voluntary conformity with the schemes that already exist. They have not responded to our recommendation in the way that we had a right to expect after putting in so much thought.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) mentioned licensing hours. I agree entirely that it would benefit tourism enormously if more flexibility were introduced into licensing hours. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to move in that direction, but if the hon. Gentleman believes, or is trying to make the House believe, that the Government could introduce a Bill along the lines that he suggested without opposition, as he seemed almost to promise, he is either naive himself or he assumes that we are naive. I do not expect that there will be a rapid or early move in this direction, but I hope that the Minister will accept that the United Kingdom's licensing hours remain a major anomaly and create much disturbance in the hotel and catering industry. The sooner there is a move towards greater flexibility the happier I shall be, and I suspect that that is the attitude of the Government as well.
The Committee laboured long and hard to produce the report. We did not expect all our recommendations to be accepted; we understood that some were especially controversial. However, we are disappointed, because not only was our major recommendation rejected out of hand, with what could only have been scant consideration, but the Government's response to our other fairly profound recommendations, whether in accepting or rejecting them, did not provide alternative suggestions. I hope that the Minister will go beyond the Government's response and give us some heart after our labour.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I represent a constituency which is not normally associated with tourism. However, I am sure that the House will agree, especially the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), that that is to change over the next few years. My concern with the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry — here I disagree utterly and completely with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) — lies with recommendation 2(a) that the Scottish tourist board should be abolished. I rarely compliment the Government, but I am bound to say that they acted wisely in their response to that recommendation.
The report contains a great deal of sense in its observations on education and training, which are matters on which I shall spend some time. First, it states that

tourism in Scotland has an annual value of £1,300 million and accounts for at least 5 per cent. of the work force in Scotland. These facts are to be found in paragraph 54. If we take into account the direct and indirect effects of tourist spending in Scotland, it has been estimated by the Scottish tourist board—long may it stay in existence—that tourism supports about 100,000 jobs, provides over £230 million of income to Scots and contributes over £130 million to the public purse. Given the remorseless decline of large segments of Scottish manufacturing industry—I refer especially to steel, shipbuilding and engineering and the coal industry — tourism remains one of the few bright prospects for the rehabilitation of the Scottish economy.
It is vital that Government policy is designed to secure the maximum benefit for our growing tourist industry. Tourism, however, remains vulnerable. It is an amalgam of many diverse activities and carefully selected policies are needed that are designed to protect its health and sustain its growth.
Despite what I said about my constituency, I wish to raise a constituency matter. I say to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I regret that a Scottish Minister is not on the Government Front Bench this evening. I am sure, however, that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will pass on my remarks to the Secretary of State for Scotland. My constituency is racked by unemployment and has a male unemployment rate of fully 26 per cent. It has seen the continuing decline of numerous traditional industries, some of which have disappeared in recent years. Shipbuilding and marine engineering have declined and only one sugar refinery remains. Rope making has declined as well. Many traditional industries have suffered, yet the record of IBM demonstrates that in Greenock and Port Glasgow and the rest of Inverclyde we have a marvellous supply of skills and knowledge.
The Scottish Office, by way of the Scottish Development Agency, has helped to create the lnverclyde initiative. The initiative is seeking to regenerate the Inverclyde district and all of us — certainly all Scots Members—wish those involved well. My chief complaint against the Scottish Office and its Ministers is that public investment is somewhat meagre. I have sought unsuccessfully to persuade Ministers to provide more money for the initiative, and it is my view that lnverclyde could be an important area of tourism in Scotland. To that end, I hope sincerely that the Government will give every encouragement to the application which is being made by the Inverclyde initiative for a grant from the European social fund for a tourist industry training scheme. The scheme is designed for the unemployed who are aged under 25 years. It is a three-year innovatory programme that will experiment in different forms of training that are allied to the creation of new businesses in the tourist industry, which the Inverclyde initiative intends to stimulate.
For the year 1988, the initiative is seeking £48,000 from the European social fund. That will have to be matched pound for pound by the Government. Given such a modest request, the Government should support the application wholeheartedly.
Tourism spending penetrates all aspects of the Scottish economy. It remains remarkably vulnerable, however, to fluctuations in the patterns of tourist activity. A strong pound, for example, tempts ever more British tourists abroad and deters foreign visitors from coming to Great


Britain. Other international events have the same effect, and we must bear in mind the Libyan crisis. I think that it was the Department of Employment which suggested recently that the number of American visitors to Great Britain had declined by 19 per cent. in the year that ended in June. Overall, the number of foreign visitors is down by about 15 per cent. over the year.
The consequence is inevitably a downturn in economic activity and a quite serious loss of jobs. Tourist-related jobs in Scotland are still largely of lowly status and are dominated by temporary and part time employment. Much needed employment is created for women, but these jobs are often lowly paid and insufficient to provide a primary wage.
There are structural weakenesses in the tourist industry which must be tackled with assistance from the Government and the state. For example, tourist businesses in Scotland are typically small scale. Almost two thirds of them employ no more than five people. Secondly, there is a substantial turnover among tourism-related businesses. As many as 50 per cent. of the businesses that offer accommodation in Scotland have been established in the past five years. Thirdly, few business men in the tourist industry in Scotland — less than 25 per cent. — have formal qualifications for the work that they do. Fourthly, the majority of these business men have no experience of the tourist industry when taking up ventures within it. These are major structural weaknesses, and I suspect that they are not peculiar to the Scottish industry.
I shall direct myself to key areas in the determination of state policy. The Government need to be more sympathetic to the case that is being made for tourism. I welcome wholeheartedly the Select Committee's report, despite its recommendation that the Scottish tourist board should be abolished. Government sympathy towards the industry should be based on a recognition of the benefits to the public purse. It has a job-creating capacity and its role, which has been outlined by the sole SDP representative in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is in regional, economic and social developments, especially in more remote communities. The Government must always recognise the potential for growth.
Much more emphasis needs to be placed on the domestic market. We must recognise that fluctuations in the value of sterling will make the industry vulnerable to reductions in foreign visitor levels. We in Scotland must do much more to persuade English visitors to come to Scotland. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will agree with me, but there have been dramatic changes in west central Scotland. I am pretty sure that five years ago most Scots Members would not have thought that Glasgow would receive more visitors than Edinburgh. It should not surprise us that Glasgow, with its unparalleled Victorian architecture—if it is matched at all, it is matched only by Sydney — the Burrell collection, fine churches and many different buildings and activities, is an important tourist centre. I look forward to the day when the lower Clyde becomes an important tourist centre.
I return to my central theme. The Government should ensure that tourism planning policies must relate to local development programmes which benefit and stimulate economic and employment growth in the area. I commend to the House the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in that respect.
There are many other areas in which the Government could do more. For example, they must develop infrastructures, and recognise, as has been said, the important role played by local authorities in the development of tourist facilities and resources. However, I think that time is against me, so I shall not elaborate on that.
Wider training opportunities for both employers and employees in the tourist industry can and must be provided through the existing educational establishments and facilities. The Government recognised the new needs of Scotland's leisure industries and the deficiencies in existing educational training by establishing the Gunn committee in 1979. However, the Gunn report has still not been published even though the English equivalent, the Yates report, was, I believe, published about two years ago. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a duty to the House and to the STB to ensure that that report is published.
I welcome the Select Committee's report, because it outlines the problems facing the industry. Paragraph 121 reads:
At present the provisions for training for a career in tourism are pathetic".
I agree with that. I suspect that it is true of the whole of the United Kingdom. The report continues:
The BTA estimate that currently the tourist industry in the United Kingdom is generating upwards of 50,000 new jobs a year. This makes it the single biggest provider of new jobs in the economy, and it is vital that adequate education facilities are provided to ensure that people trained in basic skills are there to take the jobs.
I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis.
It is encouraging that the Committee also welcomed the intervention of the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry in stressing the need for spending in higher education in order to reflect the importance of training for tourism. The Committee recommends that
the Government gives urgent consideration to ensuring that the higher education system is structured so that, throughout the United Kingdom, sufficient people trained with tourism-related qualifications arrive on the job market to meet the needs of the tourism industry.
Given the industry's importance to the Scottish economy, that is vital. That recommendation and the accompanying injunctions to develop collaborative links with industry and commerce are timely and are compatible with education institutions working within the framework for academic planning.
The report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council has an important role to play in leisure management training and tourism training. A responsiveness to changing needs must be a central tenet of any educational institution in that area.
I believe that the key issue is the role of the existing institutions in providing education and training. The Secretary of State's decision, the report of the STEAC and the publication of the Gunn report are all vital. The Dunfermline college of physical education, which is in Edinburgh—so there are no constituency marks for my next point — has earned itself an important role by diversifying into this area of education and training during the past decade. I am happy to pay a richly deserved compliment to that college's management. It is vital that everything should be done to ensure that it continues to play that role, and that the college management should be allowed to continue its pioneering work unfettered. Education, training, research and development are as


important to the tourist industry as they are to any other industry in the United Kingdom. That cannot he stressed enough.

Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate the Government on rearranging the business this week so that we can debate this subject tonight. I believe that there is no more important subject than the development of the tourist industry. But the timing of the debate is also good, because the number of tourists coming to Britain has taken a bit of a dive due to anxieties felt in the United States about the possibility of terrorist attacks— which have not, thank heaven, occurred—and to the strength of the pound against the dollar.
Nevertheless, it is important that we should consider the long-term strategy for developing tourism still further in this country. As has been said many times, jobs in the tourist sector are real jobs. We are talking about career opportunities and jobs. In the tourist industry, there are many diverse types of job. Moreover, many of those involved in manufacturing depend on tourists as well as on people in this country to buy their goods.
There is also a large labour content in tourism. The hotel and catering industry employs many people, and provides them with real jobs. Those jobs are not servile. For some reason, we have allowed it to be accepted that it is a servile occupation to wait in a restaurant or to serve in a hotel. The same attitude is not found in other countries — notably, the United States. In the United States, it is a joy to be served by people who have a professional interest in doing the job. They do it extremely well, and no one would ever say that they had a servile occupation.
We must raise educational standards in this country and train people in the right way. We must achieve the necessary attitude of mind if they are to play a real part in developing our tourist industry. I read with interest the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the excellent report of the Select Committee. Indeed, I pay a warm tribute to the work carried out by the members of that Committee for investigating the matter thoroughly and producing a stimulating and informative report which can be built on. I am not necessarily saying that I agree with everything in it, but there is an enormous amount with which I agree. I know that much work goes into providing the information available in the report, and I also know of the time involved in visiting different parts of the country. Such visits are vital if Members of Parliament are to obtain the right information and have first-hand knowledge.
The Government should take a bold step on education. It is not enough for the Government to say that they will encourage colleges to increase the number of courses available for career training in tourism. We must do something much bolder than that. We must increase the number of courses available and their content. It is important to have full discussions with those in the industry, so that our school leavers can go into the jobs that are available in the industry. It is vital that we should consider this issue within the broad context of what we are trying to do, and ensure that enough money is made

available to do it. It is estimated that up to 250,000 new jobs will be created in the tourist industry during the next five years. We must provide people to fill those jobs.
A number of important courses are held within our universities, polytechnics and colleges. I do not criticise any of those courses, but I have to say that they do not go far enough in covering the breadth of the disciplines in the tourist industry. I should like to see a new college of excellence set up, and I have made that recommendation before. It could be set up on the lines of the Royal College of Art. That is one of our most excellent colleges and is regarded as such in the architectural design and art professions in Britain. It could also be a college on a par with Imperial college. The industry needs a focal point, and that is my reason for making that suggestion.
The subject of conferences is important for many hon. Members, and not least for me because my constituency has a fine conference centre. The report refers to the need to improve the promotion of Britain as a base for conferences. I echo that recommendation. Something more should be done to build Britain's reputation as a pleasant, enjoyable and safe place for international conferences. It is a highly competitive business, and we must recognise that we are in strict competition with Europe, the United States and other countries.
The Government have said that they will have discussions about this with the British Tourist Authority. I hope that they will take it further than just having discussions and will ensure that there is sufficient promotional finance available. Whichever way we look at it, money will be necessary if proper promotion is to be undertaken.
The report refers to the difficulties in constituencies like mine over the wholly inadequate system of calculating the grant-related expenditure formula. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, the data on which grant-related expenditure and visitor numbers are calculated go back to the 1970s. That is wholly out of step with changes that have taken place, not least in my constituency. It seems unfair that a town which has built a conference centre without any grants from Europe or from the Government, but has funded it wholly from the resources available to it in the form of loans and capital which bear heavily on the ratepayers, should, over successive years, have a reduction in the amount from the grant-related formula that has resulted in a high proportion of rates falling on each ratepayer to finance the conference centre. That also applies to a number of towns in Britain.
We have to recognise that a conference centre is not just for the benefit of a single town; its benefits go much wider. If the Government will relate the grants that are given to the development of facilities and to certain areas, that mechanism will allow the Government to encourage expenditure on the service sector in different parts of the country where the need is greatest.
Many of my hon. Friends have spoken about flexible licensing hours. I share the desire to see a change in the situation because for too long we have been wholly out of step with Europe and with most of the other countries in the free world. We must do something to change the ridiculous system under which somebody who comes out of a theatre in the evening and goes into a pub for a drink has to down it quickly before he is thrown out into the


street because the pub is not allowed to stay open. I hope that in the next session some way will be found to bring licensing legislation before the House.
There is a minor but important way in which we could help people in the catering industry. At the moment restaurants are not permitted to sell alcohol with meals outside normal licensing hours. Extensions are applied for and in many cases freely given, but it is ridiculous that at certain times there is a cut-off and those dining in the restaurant find they cannot order a drink even though they are having a meal. Legislation introduced to correct that would not arouse a great deal of controversy and would go a long way towards easing the problem in restaurants.
We need a more positive approach to planning. Local authorities have begun to see the advantages of tourist projects. By responding quickly to applications, we can arouse enthusiasm and harness it to ensure that projects funded by private enterprise get off the ground. All too often an application is submitted and then there is a delay because of an inquiry or whatever. By the time it gets to the point where the planner is told that he can go ahead with the project, the people who are sponsoring it are fed up with the whole thing. That is because the climate has possibly changed and interest rates have gone up or down and nothing has happened and everybody has wasted two years of effort. Something needs to be done to spur on projects that will lead to employment.
We need to improve our methods of disseminating information about tourist areas. It is ridiculous that one cannot get adequate information at the point of port entry or at railway stations where people from abroad want to find out about travel. I know that something is being done, but let us do it fast and firmly.
The Select Committee report speaks about the grant of - 30 per cent. towards the labour cost of keeping facilities open during an extra month at an unpopular time in the year. I depart from the members of the Committee on this recommendation because it could lead to a tiumber of facilities being kept open for which there was no proper demand. One cannot successfully keep an ice cream parlour open if there is no one around to eat ice cream or go to a fun fair. Such money could be applied to building an infrastructure that would allow people more time to enjoy their leisure pursuits protected from the vagaries of our weather.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend think that people who have to pay 70 per cent. for keeping facilities open, because the recommended grant is only 30 per cent. of the labour costs and includes nothing towards overheads, would abuse that as they have to pay 70 per cent. out of their own pockets?

Mr. Banks: One of the problems would be defining which facilities or types of projects would apply for it. There is also a bureaucratic element in providing the grants for one twelfth of the year, and it could be abused. People would be inclined to take a gamble on the weather. If the weather was good, the results might be successful. It would be much better to provide people with protection from the weather.
Once again, I reiterate the importance of this debate. Our last debate on tourism took place some time ago. The tourist industry will provide more jobs, and that is what life is all about.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I, too, welcome the report on tourism. It focuses attention on an extremely important industry.
First, I must declare two interests. Neither of them is particularly recent, but they are relevant to this debate. Early in this Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It was at the time that the study of tourism was mooted. I had left the Committee by the time it began its deliberations on tourism, but I am pleased to say that during its deliberations the members of the Committee visited my constituency. Knowing of my interest in tourism, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), invited me to its meetings. They took place at Battle abbey and at Herstmonceux castle. Both meetings were interesting and useful. I shall deal later in my speech with the considerable and widespread interest in tourism in my constituency.
The second interest that I have to declare is that I began my business career by working in the tourist industry. When I left an American business school 20 years ago I went to work for the president of the American Express Company in New York. From that vantage point I quickly saw the importance of tourism to the national economies of countries large and small. Equally evident were the business ramifications of the international travel trade, not simply for hotels and restaurants and the turnstiles at historic monuments, but for high street shops, local transport, car rental and local publishing companies and many other businesses besides.
The Select Committee's report has highlighted the fundamental importance of tourism to this country. I shall not dwell on the statistics. However, the spending of £9 billion on tourism and the employment of I million people full-time and another 400,000 part-time speaks for itself. The British Tourist Authority has predicted that in 1988 about 16 million foreign visitors will come to this country. If tourist traffic continues to grow at the rate of 4 per cent. a year, another 400,000 people could be employed in the tourist trade by the early 1990s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) pointed out that the tourist industry cannot be compared with the engineering industry or with any of the other great manufacturing industries in that there are no centres of mass employment. Employment in the tourist industry is diffused across the country. Nevertheless, employment in the tourist industry is vital. In our seaside resorts and in many other places the local community identifies its prosperity with the volume of tourist business that it enjoys.
Comments have been made about the Government's role in tourism and their response to the Select Committee's report. A number of Government initiatives are highlighted by the report. They are very welcome initiatives. The report says that, under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, about £14·5 million was spent on tourism in 1984 and that the Department of the Environment spent £17 million. Some of that money was spent under the guise of English Heritage, to which I shall refer in a moment.
The report also points out that under this Government central ministerial responsibility for tourism has been established. The responsibility is now in the hands of the


Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).
I wish to refer to two aspects of tourist development in my constituency, both of which were touched on by the Select Committee when it visited Battle abbey and Herstmonceux castle. There are numerous tourist attractions in my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. There are the seaside resorts, such as Bexhill-on-Sea, Norman's bay and Pevensey bay. It also contains a number of historic sites. Apart from Battle abbey, there are three castles in the constituency: Bodiam, Pevensey and Herstmonceux.
When the Select Committee visited Battle, it would have seen that tourism is very much part of the way of life there. People are attracted to Battle not only during the summer. For example, the Battle bonfire boys have been in existence for 300 years and they attract about 10,000 visitors to their bonfire night. That means much to local business. Furthermore, local business is making its own contribution by means of the "1066 Country" initiative. The East Sussex county council, the Rother district council and others are determined to focus as much attention as they can on the attractions of the history of that part of Sussex.
The Government are also playing a part by developing the local infrastructure, both in roads, as in the case of A21 and A27 improvements, and in the railway line. However, two particularly important points need to be brought to the attention of my hon. Friend. The first concerns investment by English Heritage in that part of Sussex. The Select Committee saw Battle abbey, where there are positive plans to develop tourism. It did not see Pevensey castle, however, where there is a small but nevertheless definite problem. The castle is looked after by English Heritage, but the Pevensey Town Trust is supposed to look after the environs. Only a few weeks ago the trust found that it had no funds to maintain the Pevensey cattle market site, which is the local car park, and had to close it. This has had a direct effect on local tourism. That is a typical example of how English Heritage could extend the scope of its activities if it were a little more ambitious and looked further than the project at Battle abbey.
English Heritage has also recently examined the Roman ruins at Beauport park, which could be developed and would bring more tourist trade both to Hastings and to Battle, and to the surrounding areas. Perhaps most important of all is Herstmonceux castle. I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I were to embark on the various scientific arguments that surround the proposed move of the Royal Greenwich Observatory. However, the future of tourism at Herstmonceux castle is inextricably bound up with the decision to make that move.
The Chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council said in March that tourism was not part of his brief. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Hastings and Rye we pointed out to the Science and Engineering Research Council that tourism was a significant business in Herstmonceux and had attracted over 60,000 visitors. Since then, the council has made some important concessions on tourism. It has agreed to leave the astronomy exhibition centre in the park surrounding

Herstmonceux castle, and will also leave some working observatories—the Equatorial Group—which should be sufficient attraction in themselves to make sure that the local tourist trade is not impaired.
The future of the castle remains a central concern to all those in east Sussex who wish to see tourism develop. I have suggested to English Heritage and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the council should begin urgent consultations with English Heritage to see whether it cannot transfer or sell Herstmonceux castle to English Heritage. It would be a tragedy if, to raise the money that it needs to fund the proposed move of the observatory to Cambridge, the council sold the castle into private hands and the public could no longer visit it. Even with the astronomy exhibition centre in operation, the attractions of the castle itself would be lost to the visiting public, and that is something that we must avoid at all costs.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear my next point in mind. Yesterday during Education and Science Questions, it seemed clear from the answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not interfere with the council's decision. If that means that he will not guide it on the sale of the castle, tourism in east Sussex will be badly damaged. That is of central concern and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it in replying to the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that English Heritage can expand its investment in east Sussex at Battle abbey and at Herstmonceux castle. If so, we shall see more people employed in the tourist trade in that part of southern England.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to address myself to a restricted focus within the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it, that of seasonality. Great as is the employment provided by the tourist industry, its greatest single shortcoming is its seasonality — the fact that it does not provide employment for 12 months of the year. In most cases it does not provide pensionable employment. Therefore, the Select Committee was much taxed by the means through which the Government could assist in promoting what must be Government policy — that this enormous industry should be perennial rather than seasonal.
We discovered a circular position. Hoteliers complained that they could not attract residents because the facilities either did not open, or had closed, while many of the operators of facilities complained they could not keep their facilities open because there were not sufficient people in the hotels to patronise them. Both claims have demonstrable truth and justice in them. How, therefore, do we break out of that? How do we persuade operators to stay open later, or to open earlier in the year than they are prepared to do in their commercial judgment?
The Committee's answer was that the Government should pay a grant of 30 per cent. of the labour costs, not the overheads, of operators staying open for one month extra, for two years. We claim no magic for the figure of 30 per cent. We did not make any recommendation about whether the month should be in one slug, at the beginning or the end. PAYE returns will show when businesses were open in the previous year. The Committee has also recognised that many of the enterprises providing facilities


for tourists are run by the self-employed, so that recommendation must apply to the self-employed as well as to the employing.
I am deeply disappointed that the Government's response was wholly negative, and I do not know how the Minister wishes us to interpret his apparent assertion that the tourist boards are responsible with him for rejecting the recommendation. Page 8 of the Government's response states:
The Government's view, shared by the tourist boards, is that the combination of creative marketing with selected project development is the most effective way of dealing with the problems of seasonality and that the growing success of the Boards' campaign makes it unnecessary to explore alternative approaches such as subsidising the labour costs of tourist facilities in the way the Select Committee has suggested.
None of the tourist boards had the courtesy to write to the Select Committee to say that they were advising the Minister to reject the recommendation. I do not wish to accuse them unjustly, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene now if his reply has been misread. If he is attributing to the tourist hoards advice to him to reject our suggestion which they have not made to him, I ask him to intervene now and correct me so that I do not attribute to them something that they have not done.

Mr. Trippier: Let me make it absolutely clear that the view expressed by the hoards is the view shared by the Government—the Department of Employment—and, if my hon. Friend wishes, me in particular. I shall refer to that when I reply and try to develop the reasons why I reject the proposition.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am wholly happy that my hon. Friend should tell me why the Government reject it. But he appears to be attributing the Government's rejection to the tourist boards' rejection. The tourist boards have not told the Select Committee that they rejected our suggestion. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to send the Clerk of our Committee the letters from the tourist boards in which they have advised him to reject the specific recommendation of our Committee. My hon. Friend is inviting the House to reject our recommendation in paragraph 109 on the basis of the tourist boards' advice, and I am wholly unaware that the tourist boards have given any such advice.

Mr. Trippier: I do not understand how my hon. Friend interprets that from the paragraph that he has read out which is at the top of page 8. The first line says:
The Government's view, shared by the tourist boards".
What is wrong with that'?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The tourist boards have not expressed any such view to the Select Committee. All I am saying is that if they have expressed such a view to my hon. Friend the Minister, but have not bothered to tell the Select Committee, I, and I am sure my colleagues on the Select Committee, would like to know the terms in which they have advised my hon. Friend the Minister to reject that.
I can do little better than specifically to draw to the attention of the House paragraph 109 — and I am not given to reading to the House. We said:
A circular situation can exist whereby tourist facilities of all kinds close as what is seen as the 'season' draws to its end: and accommodation for tourists closes as there are not enough facilities still open to attract people into an economic occupation of the accommodation. Yet it is in the public

interest to lengthen the holiday season, both to prolong employment and to get the best return from the public investment in infrastructure and holiday facilities.
I do not see how anybody can depart from that reasoning. We go on to say:
PAYE records will, in most cases, show during what period facilities were in fact functioning in a given year. It might be possible therefore to break this unproductive cycle by offering public money to pay a proportion of the labour costs of remaining open for a specified period longer than the previous year, both to promote longer employment, and to measure the cumulative effect of such a prolongation.
The Committee did not claim that it knew the answer to such an experiment. We believe that such an experiment is worth while, and that nobody can know the answer until the experiment has been conducted.
We then go on in bold print with our recommendation. which says:
We therefore recommend that for two years the Government should pay a grant of 30 per cent. of the labour cost of tourist facilities remaining open for one month additional to the period which the enterprise concerned (be it accommodation, catering, or other holiday facility) was open in the previous year, the regional tourist board being the arbiter for payment and qualification.
That is one of the most constructive and positive suggestions that the Committee put forward. From whomever we took evidence, the point was made that it is an immensely seasonal business.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are moving more and more in the direction of wanting the private sector to take over the financing of pensions for people in this country, rather than the public sector. If they hold that view coherently and consistently, they must want the tourist industry, which is now such a major employer, to be perennial and to supply pensionable employment rather than seasonal and not supply pensionable employment.
It is all very well for the Minister to reject our recommendation and say:
The Government's view, shared by the tourist boards, is that a combination of creative marketing with selected project development is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of seasonality".
But has it been effective? It has not.
I do not believe that the tourist boards have written to my hon. Friend saying, "Reject the Committee's view and we will support you." I believe that if they had done so my hon. Friend would have the elementary courtesy to send the Committee copies of the letters concerned, which he has not done. I also believe that the tourist boards would have sent us copies. I believe, in the absence of such evidence, that he is attributing to the tourist boards a view which they have not expressed.

Mr. Kennedy: A conspiracy.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not indulging in conspiracy theories, but I do believe that he is attributing to the tourist boards a specific view of our recommendations that they have not expressed.
I have focused on this point because my personal opinion is that the seasonality of the industry is one of its greatest vices as an employer. The Committee was much seized of that point. Of course, we covered many other things as well; but my dedication is not to expanding peaks, important as that is, but to turning the industry into a perennial one.
Look through the rest of our report, with its many useful and valuable recommendations, and accept them if


the Government will, but why reject one of the most creative suggestions, where 70 per cent. of the labour cost risk and the whole of the overhead cost risk falls on the entrepreneur who applies for the grant? Why is it likely to be abused, when 70 per cent. of labour costs and the whole of the overhead costs fall on the entrepreneur who takes advantage of it? I suspect that it is rejected because it involves spending a bit more money. That is my honest opinion. I ask my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is now in charge of tourism throughout the United Kingdom, to reconsider this. It is a very good bargain for the taxpayer because the people who will be taken on would otherwise be drawing unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit.
Undeniably, it costs hoteliers more money to open earlier or stay open later. Staying open later can involve heating costs which can be considerable. Opening earlier may involve them in additional advertisement costs, but we want to persuade them to put their foot in the water and find that it is not freezing. We want to persuade them to try a longer season, slightly reducing their exposure, and then find that it pays them, so that after two years they would do it wholly with their own money and not at all with the Government's. We say two years. In the second year— let there be no misunderstanding about this—it would have to be a month longer than in the first year — [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Minister wish to contribute?

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): No.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I hoped that he would.
In the second year, those who wanted to benefit would have to be open two months longer than in the base year. That is the proposition that has been dismissed in such a cavalier way. I should like to see the letters from the tourist board because I should like to know the reasons that they gave the Minister—if they did, because I do not believe that they did — for turning down that positive recommendation.
The only other comment that I wish to make is about our structural recommendations. The money spent on promotion of tourism can do three things. It can persuade people to come from abroad to the United Kingdom who otherwise would not have come. It can persuade people from abroad to spend money on a longer tourist season in Britain, or it can rob Peter to pay Paul: it can merely persuade people to go to one location in the United Kingdom rather than another.
Unfortunately, it is that third facet that can well involve much public expenditure. At the moment, because we have a different system of financing from public money, from the Consolidated Fund, from the same taxpayers' money, tourism in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland compared with England, there are no cohesive parameters to that expenditure. That is why the Committee recommended a structure for the United Kingdom as a whole. We did not make recommendations as to what its criteria should be internally, but we recommended having a coherent structure, which we do not have at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, the House may be unaware that when we asked the civil servants from the Department of Trade and Industry who was responsible for the overall allocation of money within the

United Kingdom on tourism they said that the Treasury was. We then sent for Treasury Ministers and said that the Department of Trade and Industry had said that they were responsible. We asked what their criteria were. The answer was, "They were wrong: we are not responsible." So we ended up discovering that nobody is responsible. This must be the only aspect of public expenditure in which no Minister acknowledges being responsible for the allocation of expenditure within the United Kingdom. That is unique.
In rejecting the Committee's recommendations, the Government have not put anything in the place of our recommendation. It is just left hanging in the air, with the Government rejecting our recommendation. Remember— I say "remember" because it is forgotten — that the Select Committees were set up in the first place to replace the old Estimates Committee and to try to bring coherence into public accountability. That is often forgotten.
If my hon. Friend the Minister rejects the Select Committee's solution to the problem of a coherent allocation of funds throughout the United Kingdom, what does he propose to put In its place? Does he propose to put nothing in its place, and to continue the existing system where there is no rationale within the United Kingdom for expenditure from the Consolidated Fund between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ulster? That is the conundrum into which my hon. Friend the Minister will plunge the Government if he rejects the Select Committee's recommendation.
My hon. Friend the Minister was perfectly entitled to find another solution in place of that suggested by the Select Committee. However, if he rejects the Select Committee's solution after the problem has been exposed and puts nothing in its place for the coherent allocation of funds for the promotion of tourism, by default he will state that he and the Government are happy with a chaotic, unjustifiable, illogical, irrational and capricious allocation of public expenditure between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: We have had an example in this debate of Select Committees working at their best. I believe that the Select Committee report is of a high quality. It is full of interesting and positive ideas.
The contributions by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), and by the other members of the Committee have shown the wide range of expertise that was brought to the task. Reading the report was an education for me.
On the other hand, the Government response to the report has been—to be polite—dismal. We have seen a fund of interesting ideas and a dismal Government response. The Government, in the face of these interesting recommendations, have more or less said, "Very interesting, but none of them is workable and the Treasury would not like them anyway."
Enough hon. Members have stressed how vital tourism is. Expenditure in the industry was £10 billion in 1984 and the forecast for 1988 is £14 billion. The industry employs more than 1 million workers and is on course to be the largest employer in the nation. Some of us have been guilty in the past—and at times we should admit such guilt—of ridiculing service industries such as tourism. Many of


us have learnt that we should not do that to an industry which is bigger than most of the other manufacturing sectors and which has more potential than most.
The Select Committee report has produced some fascinating information. It reveals that 50 million overseas visitors come to this country, of whom 20 per cent. are business and conference visitors. That is a healthy trend and things appear to be on course, although there has been a sad setback. Over the past weeks I have spoken to people in the tourist business. Many believe that they are entitled to compensation from the Government as they have received a tremendous slap to their revenue, income and livelihood because of the Government's decision to offer bases to the United States. Perhaps some of the costs of the promotional work being carried out by British Airways and others in the United States should be taken up by the Government. I do not see why British Airways, British Caledonian and others should have to pay to correct a problem which has arisen through no fault of their own.
The Select Committee also dug up other worrying matters. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred to the seasonality of tourism in some depth and made some interesting points. Employment in the tourist industry is not all short-term, seasonal, low-paid or on the whim of an employer for a few days or weeks. There is much long-term, pensionable employment in the tourist industry and the Opposition would be the first to admit that. But there is also a lot of the other kind of employment. As in every other industry, I hope that good, non-seasonal, well-paid jobs will emerge in the tourist industry. One way to achieve that is through better trade union organisation and better standards of work.
The very high level of unemployment in this country also affects domestic tourism. As the Select Committee pointed out, we are talking about not just foreigners coming here but British people holidaying in Britain. The most chilling figure in the report is that 40 per cent. of British people never have a holiday away from home, either here or overseas. That is a sobering thought for those who, like most Members of Parliament, have holidays every year, and it is a sad comment on the perspectives and prospects of many people's lives in 1986. There is major scope for the expansion of domestic tourism.
We have a vital and important tourist industry, but there is much to be done. What seems to emerge from the report of the all-party Select Committee is a desire not just for coherence, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton referred, but for a positive, creative Government policy for tourism. The Government brag about developments in tourism, sometimes as a political move to draw people's eyes away from the terrible decline in manufacturing industry, but at the bottom line of their response to the report there is no positive policy for the development of the tourist industry in the long term. Many of the Select Committee recommendations suggest that there should be such a policy, but that Government policy at present is uncertain, fragmented and unco-ordinated.
One does not have to agree with all the Select Committee's proposals on structure to understand the need to do something about the national, regional and local organisation of tourism in this country and its promotion overseas, and nothing that has been said in the debate has persuaded me otherwise. This most important industry must have a positive, planned approach, because without such an approach — ironically, this is the

problem — it runs against market forces. The Government are still dominated by the idea that everything will turn out all right if market forces are allowed to go their own way, but in the tourist industry the result will be disaster. In this, as in so many other industries, we need a positive relationship between the private and the public sectors.
I mention just one small instance. There has been the most wonderful rebirth of the canal system in this country, especially in my constituency and in that of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), both of which are linked by canals. The canal system has been brought back to life not by private investment but by public investment. That development has just begun and it has a great future. Once the public sector, whether it be central or local government, makes the heavy investment necessary to bring the system back to life, the private sector will move in to build hotels, leisure facilities, pubs, and the rest—and so it should. But first there must be a planned investment in the infrastructure. A positive relationship between the private and public sectors is therefore vital.
Planning is also important in relation to the short season of employment in the tourist industry. I have listened carefully to what has been said about this aspect, and I believe that the Government should think again about the very positive measures that have been suggested. They have been rejected because it means the Government taking an initiative and saying — pragmatically, not ideologically — "We shall try having the public sector take a lead."
A matter to which the Select Committee did not turn its mind, but which affects me as I have four children of school age, is the blight on tourism of school holidays and the traditional works and factory holidays. As many people are restricted to taking their holidays in just six weeks of the year, it is no wonder that the tourist season is so short. It might be sensible to discuss that narrow vision of holidays with the Department of Education and Science because it is important to expand the tourist season.
I have great sympathy with the Minister, who has a large brief. I know that, because I have a large shadow brief. It is impossible to give a Minister a brief for education and training, virtually the whole of the Manpower Services Commission, co-operatives and small businesses, and at the end to add tourism. We need a Minister who can devote a great deal of his time to tourism. It is a vital industry, so why is there not a Minister responsible for tourism who could bring together the Departments concerned?
I believe that the shift in responsibility for tourism from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment was a retrograde step, made for political purposes.

Mr. Trippier: Rubbish.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister and I have to disagree on some matters.
There should be not a positive public relations exercise, but a real shift in emphasis to a Minister with real power co-ordinating all the efforts in the tourist industry. There must be a more positive lead from the Government in creative partnership between the private and public sectors. A creative partnership in many tourism and leisure


projects could be beneficial in the medium to long term. The public sector could provide the essential infrastructure and the private sector could build on it. How can there be forward planning without a real move towards thinking and planning for the long term?
The Select Committee must surely have noticed, as it went about the country, that some of the most important initiatives in tourism development have been taken by local councils. West Yorkshire has suffered a body blow to tourist development with the abolition of the metropolitan county council, which was carrying out positive and creative work in tourism. That gap cannot be filled in the short term by the local councils. The Select Committee must surely have realised that, with the one hand, the Government have abolished some authorities while, with the other, they have placed the remaining local authorities in a straitjacket as regards the amount of finance and initiative they can put into tourist development. They are hampered at every turn. They have lost their ability under section 142 to raise money, and they have no compensation because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties. That has been a sad blow to local authorities which have been trying to show the way forward. Local councils know what they can do in their own areas.
We want a tourist policy that reaches the parts that tourist policy has never reached before. Tourism is ready to be exploited all over the region in areas such as my own. Good jobs can be created out of tourism.
Promotion is not enough. Someone said to me the other day that tourists come to this country to learn about British history, not to experience it. That is important to remember.
These days, people expect high standards of service. I have heard many remarks about poor service in this country. That leads me to education and training. The Government's policies and their answers to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry are laughable. If industrial training boards are abolished, training takes place on a voluntary basis. We know that not every industry carries out training. The tourist industry cannot be excused for not undertaking enough training and for not achieving high quality training.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), made an excellent point when he said that we need a centre of excellence. Cornell university, across the Atlantic, has a magnificent hotel management course. That course is renowned. It is in one of the best universities in America. Let us compare that with our education and training effort. We need to train people properly.
Many people in this country do not like service. The class system does not exist in the United States. I dine in restaurants in London quite often. I have seen guests treat waiters and waitresses in a way that they would never treat them in the United States. That is another reason why people do not like service. Let us have tourism, but let us have a positive, planned tourist policy that takes us somewhere, and let us have a Government who will deliver it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on what is, I think we

would all agree, one of the most important subjects that we could discuss on the Floor of the House. I am disappointed that members of the Select Committee are concerned about the Government's reply to the Committee's recommendations. I found that the Select Committee carried out a detailed and thorough study. Its contribution to the debate on tourism is widely welcomed, and I can agree with much of the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) accurately described some of the issues as controversial. It was the major ones which were controversial and which, in the end, we rejected. I think that I am under a moral obligation, in the short time that I have at my disposal, to try to elaborate on the reasons why we rejected the two major proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred to the other.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said at the outset that it had taken a year for the report to be completed. When the report was started, the responsibility for tourism was vested in the Department of Trade and Industry. It is perhaps somewhat strange that it should end up with that Department, but I am glad that it did. It is a bit like Magnus Magnusson on "Mastermind", where once something is started it must be finished. One does actually start with an initiative. I am glad that after all the research and hard work, the report was completed and I welcome many of the proposals. They are a great contribution to the debate.
Of course, an awful lot happened in that year. Although hon. Members have been kind enough to refer to one or two events, the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), is the most significant of all. Responsibility for tourism moved from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment. Not only did that give a higher profile to the industry, which all hon. Members seemingly support, but it was a clear recognition that we had a sector that had the wealth and job creation potential that we could not see in others.
At the same time, and for exactly the same reasons, we moved the responsibility of sponsorship for small firms. That was pointed out by my noble Friend long before he became Secretary of State for Employment. He was able to see the enormous potential in the sector. Not everybody who has spoken today saw that potential when he did. I should have thought that more credit would be given to him for taking on board the production of PLJ, as we affectionately know it—pleasure, leisure and jobs. That was developing all the time. The White Papers on deregulation are an important part of the process, but as far as I can remember nobody has mentioned them today.
It would be churlish of me to avoid answering questions that hon. Members have asked. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked me to draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland what he said about signposting. I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend was in the Chamber at the time, but I am now under an obligation to write to him. I shall do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made an important point. The Department has an enormous task in trying to convince people in the north, especially in local government, of the enormous


advantages of tourism and of the potential in their areas. My hon. Friend drew our attention to Bradford. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) talked of local authorities realising the potential in their areas. The Bradford example can be held up to the whole nation. It all started with a photographic museum, which now attracts more than 1 million visitors a year. Who would have thought it? If somebody had told me or the hon. Member for Rotherham 10 years ago that Bradford could be turned into a tourist area and that a major tourist attraction would draw 1 million visitors a year, we should

Mr. Geoff Lawler: On behalf of Bradford council, may I thank my hon. Friend for that advertisement? It will be greatly welcomed and I hope that it will generate a lot of custom from hon. Members during the summer recess.
Although it is obviously beneficial to widen the areas of tourism away from the traditional centres, tourism brings to areas such as Bradford an improved environment. More important, it brings an improved image, which leads to all manner of other benefits when it comes to attracting industry and improving the morale of local people in a depressed city area.

Mr. Trippier: The knock-on effect is often missed when we consider these matters. The best thing to come out of the debate—it was hinted at in the Select Committee report — is an acknowledgement of the fact that, whenever possible, we should approach these matters in a bipartisan way. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a compliment to many Labour councillors whom I have met and who have taken responsibility as members of regional tourist boards, for example. Many Conservatives are also involved. When it comes to tourism, they seem to bury the political hatchet and get on with the job, recognising that we have here a sector that can create wealth and work. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the House.
The thrust of the Select Committee's report is that there should he a British tourist board. The Committee used several tables. I appreciate that officials in the House and hon. Members have put in an awful lot of work, and I pay tribute to them for that. The tables, especially those on pages xxix and xxxiii, try to develop the argument that Government funding shows a disproportionate spend in favour of Scotland and Wales compared with England. The correlation between the tourism spend in England and the lower percentage grant is set out elsewhere.
The table that appears on page xxii is interesting, but no one seems to have referred to it. I studied it this afternoon at some length. If we extrapolate the correlation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to its logical conclusion, the tourist spend in London appears to suggest that the Government should support London more than any other area. The spend in London is obviously far higher than elsewhere, and disproportionate. However, I am sure that no one in this place would seriously suggest, unless he were fighting for his London constituency a little overmuch, that the Government should contemplate more spending from the tourism grant on London. It is the Government's policy to try to encourage the dispersal of tourists, which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye acknowledged, from London into the regions, including areas of higher unemployment.

Mr. Crowther: The Minister is overlooking the fact that according to the table on page xxii the Government are already spending almost twice as much on tourism in London as in any other area listed in the chart.

Mr. Trippier: I thought that someone would say that. When spending is considered in proportion to London's population, it is a drop in the bucket.
No reference has been made to the level of unemployment in Wales and Scotland and how that compares with the average level in England. The latest figures show that there is 16·8 per cent. unemployment in Wales, 15·6 per cent. in Scotland and 12·9 per cent. in England. When Ministers at the Scottish and Welsh Offices gave evidence to the Select Committee they argued effectively, as some hon. Members have today, including the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), that it is extremely difficult to stimulate tourism. The region which I represent in part has the same problem. The problem is faced by the north-west, and very much so in Yorkshire and Humberside. Bradford, however, has shown us what can be done. It has shown other local authorities what the private sector and the Government can do together in partnership. I have no disagreement with the hon. Member for Huddersfield on that ground.
I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. It was quite a revelation for me, but not because he said it. I know the hon. Gentleman to be a decent chap. However, he is peddling propaganda which perhaps has not been approved by the Labour party. A number of Labour Members—some of them could be described loosely as distinguished members of the Labour party, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)— seem from time to time to delight in rubbishing tourism.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East refers to those who are engaged in tourism as glorified ice-cream salesmen. Mr. Ken Livingstone has referred to jobs in tourism as Mickey Mouse jobs. This is serious. The hon. Member for Huddersfield will recognise that as a Minister I have a number of responsibilities and a great deal of work to do, and I think that he will have his work cut out in trying to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends that they should stop the silly business of rubbishing tourism. We get it whenever there are employment questions, and it does an enormous amount of harm. Most important of all, it is an insult to those who are working in tourism. It is a gross insult to them at whatever level they work.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have given careful consideration to the Select Committee's report. I feel that I am under an obligation to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to explain our thought processes. I shall detail them as far as I am able as they are set out in any letters that may be available to him.
I assure the House that we have given the report very serious consideration. I welcome most of its recommendations. I suppose that the most welcome thing is that we all agree that we have a most dynamic industry, which will certainly go from strength to strength.

Mr. Warren: I wish only to acknowledge the value of this debate. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister further study of the statistics that he quoted. At first sight,


he may not have interpreted them correctly. However, I value his kind assistance to us in answering the debate, and I hope that his work will lead to extra incentives to promote tourism.
Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The original Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates 1986–87, Class XV, Vote 2 and Class VII, Vote 1.

Class XV, Vote 2

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £4,290,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on supplementary pensions and allowances.

Class VII, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £759,406,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on the promotion of tourism, including grants in aid, general labour market services, including a grant in aid, services for seriously disabled people and an international subscription.

Northern Ireland (Housing)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
The draft order provides assistance for eligible owners of certain defective houses sold by the public sector in Northern Ireland. It also extends the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and provides new statutory rights for secure tenants of the Housing Executive and registered housing associations.
The draft order was the subject of wide consultation. In addition to the Assembly, comments were also received from 16 other sources and individuals, and all these were considered carefully before deciding on the text of the draft order which is now before this House.
The method of assistance in part II is based on a similar scheme provided in Great Britain in the Housing Defects Act 1984. However, in Northern Ireland we have only the Orlit type of prefabricated reinforced concrete house and it is the intention that only this type of house will be designated under the draft order in the first instance.
Of course, we received a number of representations during the consultation period for other house types to be designated, notably aluminium bungalows and houses with defective flues. However, although the legislation provides a general framework within which other house types can be designated, I am not satisfied that these particular house types meet the criteria for designation as set out in article 4 of the draft order. I must tell the House that at the moment there do not appear to be any other substantial classes which are likely to be designated.
The Housing Executive has sold only 200 of the Orlit houses out of a total stock of about 3,000. Initially our proposals will apply only to those 200. The assistance to be provided under the draft order will be either a grant towards reinstatement or, in certain circumstances, repurchase. However, I think that it is only fair that I should say that in practice assistance will take the form of repurchase rather than reinstatement. That is because it seems very likely that the costs of repair on those Orlit homes will be higher than the market value of the houses after reinstatement.
As for the 2,800 Orlit houses which remain in the Housing Executive's ownership, I must stress that the process of deterioration is gradual, and I wish to assure the tenants who occupy them that the Housing Executive has carried out full technical investigations which have confirmed there is no immediate danger. Even those Orlit houses in which the corrosion is most advanced have a serviceable life of between five and 10 years without the need for remedial action, while the others have a life of up to 30 years. Many of those homes will provide good housing for a long time to come. None the less, I am conscious that there are genuine anxieties about the future of Orlit houses especially from tenants who will not benefit from the provisions in this order. Therefore, the Housing Executive is presently considering ways of dealing with the Orlit houses which remain in its stock. Some proposals have already been announced and other proposals will be

developed on an estate-by-estate basis after the Housing Executive has consulted the tenants and their public representatives.
Part III of the draft order deals with the rights of secure tenants. Since 1979 over 30,000 houses have been sold by the Housing Executive under its voluntary sales scheme and it has provided tenants with better terms and conditions of purchase than the Government's statutory right to buy. The scheme already incorporates all the advantages for tenant purchases included in the Housing and Planning Bill at present before Parliament. Nevertheless, although we do more, it must be right that we bring the statutory scheme in Northern Ireland into line with the parallel legislation in Great Britain, although the voluntary scheme of the Housing Executive goes considerably further than the proposals in the draft order.
The order enacts the improvements in the right-to-buy provisions in the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. At the earliest opportunity I intend to introduce the further advantages contained in the Housing and Planning Bill currently before the House. Chapter I deals with the right to buy and makes some important improvements in the statutory scheme. The proposals before the House which have already been incorporated in the executive's voluntary sales scheme will, first enable tenants in property in which the Housing Executive has a leasehold to have the same right to buy as tenants where the executive owns the property outright. Secondly, they will reduce the minimum tenancy period before entitlement to discount starts from three years to two years, and, thirdly, they will raise the maximum level of discount from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. In addition, the range of public sector tenancies which can be considered for qualification for discount purposes is extended. Tenants of the executive will have the right to purchase their homes on an equity sharing basis. I repeat that on a voluntary basis we have been doing that for about a year.
Sheltered housing for the mentally disordered is added to the other types of sheltered housing already excluded from the right to buy and I am sure that hon. Members agree with that. The criteria used to identify sheltered schemes and housing for the elderly are clarified. These are designed to reflect the way that sheltered accommodation has expanded and will also ensure that only houses which are clearly identifiable as suitable for the elderly will be excluded from the right to buy. The remaining provisions of chapter I are designed to remove uncertainties and anomalies in the existing legislation.
Part III, chapter II, contains two new rights for secure tenants; the right to exchange and the right to repair. The right to exchange is an extension of existing practice and the right to repair will give registered housing associations new responsibilities towards their tenants. Under the right to exchange a secure tenant will usually be able to assign his tenancy to another secure tenant. Under the right to repair a secure tenant will be able to carry out, or to have carried out, repairs for which his landlord is responsible and to recover the costs. I will, of course, consult the Housing Executive and other organisations such as housing associations representing public sector landlords about the details of the scheme.
Part IV of the order contains a number of miscellaneous and supplementary provisions dealing mainly with recovery of grants to housing associations, indemnities to private sector lenders, and succession rights to statutory tenancies. The proposals on PRC homes are


important to the private sector as they give relief to certain private owners who, through no fault of their own, purchased defective houses from the public housing stock. Part III of the legislation beings the law into line with existing practice and is a further step in giving tenants an individual say in the management of their homes. I trust that the House will agree that this is a sensible and a desirable measure. I am sure that the House will support it.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I congratulate the Minister on his fluency, on his grasp of the order, and on the way he took the House through it. He will pardon me if I speak with less fluency in trying to make a number of small points about the order. As we know, and as the Minister said, it is designed to provide legislation in Northern Ireland which corresponds to the provisions of the Housing Defects Act 1984 and the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. Both these Acts are now consolidated in the Housing Act 1985. Thus, there is parity in United Kingdom legislation. It knits together provisions that are equally appliable to England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
The order has two primary objectives. The first is to compensate those who bought system-built houses which were previously in the public sector and which have now been found to have fundamental defects. The Minister sought to assure those who are living in the system-built houses that are not defective. We welcome his assurances. I am sure that Northern Ireland tenants will also welcome them. The second objective of the order is to promote the purchase of public sector houses by their tenants.
We welcome the first objective. Nevertheless, we should like to examine some of the discussions that took place in the Northern Ireland Assembly and some of its recommendations. The Northern Ireland Assembly scrutinised this order. I do not wish to bore the House by referring again to the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The decision to dissolve the Assembly was taken by this House, but it is a matter of regret that Northern Ireland Assembly Members are unable to continue their effective scrutinising role.
I have before me three reports of the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of the reports deals with this order. The others deal with homelessness in Northern Ireland. It must be a matter of some regret that those who best understand the problems of Northern Ireland and who produced these reports are no longer functioning in the interests of their constituents and in the interests of those in Northern Ireland who look to them for help. I hope that it will not be too long before those hon. Members who were members of the Northern Ireland Assembly again participate in our affairs.
It is also a matter of regret that the recommendations that were made by the Northern Ireland Assembly's scrutinising committee were not acted upon by the Government. The Minister referred to some of the recommendations. There were 24 further submissions by organisations and individuals, and their recommendations and suggestions were not taken up by the Government. I trust that their failure to take into account the views of

others does not arise from indifference but, rather, from the weakness of the arguments that were put before the Government.
I have to confess that I was somewhat bemused by the illogicality of the Northern Ireland Assembly's first recommendation. It recommended that the Department of the Environment should consider means whereby the owners of house types in the private sector should he treated equally with those which had been in the public sector but which had been sold off by the Housing Executive. The Minister referred to aluminium bungalows and to those dwellings with defective flue linings and said that he was not satisfied that they ought to be part of the order. We must accept his explanation.
The Minister also said that that although the Government's reinstatement grant amounts to 90 per cent., whereas that Northern Ireland Assembly recommended that it should be 100 per cent., he is looking for the repurchase of those houses, in which case the reinstatement grant will not necesasarily be taken into account.
Is the Minister able to tell the House why the other recommendations in the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly's scrutinising committee were set aside and why other submissions by various interested parties were not taken into account? I am aware that copies of the Government's response to the Northern Ireland Assembly's report are in the Library of the House of Commons, but a brief explanation of why the recommendations were set aside would be welcomed.
We note what the Minister said about the sale of council houses, but we are anxious to ensure that the overall level of public housing in Northern Ireland is not reduced. Housing is a major issue for those who live in Northern Ireland, as it is for those who live in the rest of the United Kingdom. We acknowledge the work done by the Housing Executive over the years to ensure better standards of housing for all people in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the housing lists are long enough without their being made longer by the sale of council houses.
There is no doubt an ideological difference between the two sides of the House about the sale of council houses, but many who buy their council houses are unaware of how difficult things can become when one loses a job and ends on the dole and finds it difficult to meet mortgage payments. A reduced housing stock would make it even more difficult to house people who are already homeless, and also those who might find themselves unable to keep up with the purchase of their house and need to move back into a council house.
The Minister has told us that council houses have been sold for a year. What happens to the proceeds from those sales? Are they held by the Housing Executive as capital receipts and subject to the same rules as those that affect local councils in this country, so that only 20 per cent. of such proceeds can be used to reinvest in housing, or will there be, or is there, a special dispensation for Northern Ireland? The Opposition feel that the present levels of funding will mean that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be forced to end virtually all repair and renovation grants and to cut its new build programme.
Articles 38 and 39 deal with other rights of secure tenants, whether the rental will increase as a result of certain improvements, and the right to carry out repairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has already welcomed a report


published by the Private Housing Action group which touches on these articles, but relates to the operation of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the timely publication of this report, coming so soon after the McDowell judgment, which highlighted the predicament of private housing in Northern Ireland, provided valuable information on the true situation of those covered by the court ruling.
The report made a clear and cogent case for reform of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which refers to rent-controlled tenancies. It is our view that until such reforms take place many thousands of tenants will be left without any recourse to the law, even if injured by the failure of landlords to comply with the law. Such a situation clearly negates one of the central purposes of the rent order, allowing no effective remedy for those faced with dilatory or recalcitrant landlords. Private tenants in Northern Ireland are thereby left without the right that provides important protection to similar tenants in England.
I accept that we might be moving somewhat wider than the order, and I do not wish to detain the House longer on that issue. However, it is a matter of regret that the order cannot be amended and therefore we are not able to take into account the curious situation resulting from the McDowell judgment on private tenants.
We welcome the order and accept the thrust of the Minister's argument. We have expressed our anxieties, and no doubt at an opportune moment he will respond to them.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not wish to be disagreeable to the Minister when I say that this is a cock-eyed way to proceed. The Secretary of State, in his letter says:
The main purposes of the Proposal are to provide legislation in Northern Ireland corresponding to the Housing Defects Act 1984 and to the housing provisions of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984.
When the Bill that underlay the Housing Defects Act 1984 was first brought before the House, my hon. Friends and I asked that it might apply to Northern Ireland. We saw no reason why the benefits to purchasers of ex-public authority housing which were provided in Great Britain by the 1984 Act should not become available at the same time to those similarly situated in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who was then the Minister, at one stage believed and hoped that that might be possible. That hope has not been realised. A glance at the order will show that it comes into force two months after the order is made following the approval of a draft, which will no doubt take place tonight. In other words, for between two and three years the citizens of Northern Ireland have been deprived of the advantages accruing to those in identical circumstances in Great Britain simply because of the determination which has hitherto existed to legislate for Northern Ireland separately from the rest of the United Kingdom and by Order in Council under the 1984 Act.
There was no practicable difficulty in bringing Northern Ireland within the scope of the 1984 Act. It is true that the provision of public housing and the public housing authority in Northern Ireland is of a different character from the public housing authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there is nothing

outside the scope of the skill of parliamentary draftsmanship to have devised either clauses or a schedule which would have applied the provisions of the 1984 Act simultaneously to that part of the United Kingdom.
I followed with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) when he drew attention to the scrutiny given to this order at an earlier stage by the late, defunct and, by some, unlamented Northern Ireland assembly. It could not be accepted in the House that our procedures for dealing with legislation by way of Committee and Report stages and the scrutiny to which legislation is submitted by the means available to this House are less satisfactory than any alternative methods that are available for giving effect to the wishes of constituents and to opinion in this country.
After all, when the House and its Members are confronted with a Bill, it is the business of hon. Members concerning themselves with that legislation to ascertain and put forward for improvement or amendment matters which are brought to their attention by interested parties in their constituencies. Obviously, that does not occur when part of the United Kingdom is deliberately omitted from such legislation. It is not practicable or within the scope of human nature when a Bill by its terms excludes part of the United Kingdom for the representatives of that part to be in a position to bring forward arguments, amendments and suggestions for the improvement of that legislation on the basis that in due course, by Order in Council, it will be applied to their constituencies. The fact that the Northern Ireland Office has been scrutinising the orders is no substitute for the scrutiny which would be available, if the principal legislation had in the first place applied to Northern Ireland, as it always was intended to apply and was stated that it would apply, so that Northern Ireland Members could have the same opportunities as anyone else to participate in debate upon it and on measures for its improvement.
The same considerations apply to part I of the Housing and Building Control Act, relating to the sale of houses by public housing authorities to sitting tenants, which is the other named subject matter of the order. Again, I agree with the Minister that from the beginning it was obviously desirable, if such sale was to be regulated by statute, that those statutory provisions should apply to Northern Ireland as they applied to the rest of the United Kingdom and as they are being applied by this Order in Council. There was no practicable reason why part I of that Act should not have extended to Northern Ireland and why the facilities for debate and for scrutiny should not have been available two years ago in that context.
The Minister was right to say that the massive sale of houses by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to tenants has been one of the most important and gratifying social events in the Province in the past 12 years. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the sale of public housing to sitting tenants was piloted by the schemes which were voluntarily promoted by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Anyone who is acquainted with Northern Ireland and its housing can bear witness to the improvement of the scene that that sale has brought about. Hon. Members for other parts of the Kingdom may not be aware of the extraordinary phenomenon of what is called in Northern Ireland labourers' cottages — houses of a standard pattern which were provided at the end of the last and in the early years of the present century and which must at


the time have represented a revolutionary improvement in the conditions of living for the class which was then without shame designated as labourers.
Those houses, instantly recognisable throughout the countryside by their standard pattern — window, door, two windows—are extraordinarily popular to this day. It may seem surprising, but large prices are paid by sitting tenants to secure possession of those labourers' cottages, often dating from the early years of this century, which have to some extent been improved by the addition of porches and kitchens, but which, once they come into the hands of those who have previously been their tenants, become the object of frequently grant-aided improvement which makes a very real addition to the usable housing stock of the Province.
Nothing gives more pleasure in travelling the roads of Northern Ireland than to pick out the labourers' cottages and see those which have undergone that process of improvement over the years, not least because so many thousands of them in recent years have changed hands from the property of the Housing Executive to the property of those who were their tenants.
Perhaps I might be permitted, since it illustrates how deeply housing is woven into the social fabric of Northern Ireland, to relate one particular fact about these houses which puzzled me in my early years as a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency. A wing was attached at right angles to the main frontage of the house. What seemed to me to be curious about that wing was that it did not look like a later extension because it was covered by the same roof-tree and the same pattern of roof.
One day, when I had been a Member for some years, I happened to be visiting a constituent who lived in one of those houses and I referred to the extension. I said, "I suppose that was an improvement." "Oh, no," he said, "that is the weaving room." These houses, built in the early years of the 20th century, were unacceptable to many of those who would be their tenants unless they included a weaving room which was either short for one loom or long for two looms, and which is still to be seen today as an important addition to the living accommodation in these houses.
Therefore, I dissent in no way from the stress that the Minister placed upon the value of the sale of Housing Executive houses to sitting tenants and his admission that in many cases the facilities that have been voluntarily extended under the scheme by the Housing Executive go beyond those which are rendered compulsory by the legislation which by this Order in Council we are now applying to Northern Ireland.
Notwithstanding that, it is right that there should be a common code for the sale of housing to tenants, that that should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that it should be so made belatedly by this order, although it could perfectly well have been made two or three years ago by the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the original legislation, to the general saving of the trouble of the House and the improved participation of representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
In case the Minister should say that there are other minor items in the order to which the same stricture does not necessarily apply, I notice that even the amendment which is made in the law relating to housing associations

is a carbon copy of an amendment under the Housing Associations Act 1985 for Great Britain. In short, we are engaged in a duplicating process which is not only unnecessary but is inimical to good legislation for the Province of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the lesson, which I fear has been inculcated ad nauseam in one after another of these debates upon Orders in Council, will not be lost upon the House and the Government now that we have the opportunity, with the disappearance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to consider afresh the manner in which Northern Ireland legislation is passed by Parliament.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I welcome this order on behalf of the serried ranks of Liberal and Social Democrat party Members. I also welcome the presence of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), especially when he gives us such fascinating passages from Irish social history. I apologise to the Minister for missing the beginning of his speech and if I am unduly vulnerable as a result I hope that he will be characteristically generous. One regrets the absence of other hon. Members for the North of Ireland. One would have hoped that our colloquy would be graced by their contributions to the debate and I am sorry that that is not the case.
It is right and proper that the Housing Defects Act 1984 should be applied to Northern Ireland in the best possible way. I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us as to what has been learned from the problems that have been faced by the application of the Housing Defects Act 1984 in England and Wales since its inception. Those of us who represent constituencies which are particularly affected by the Act are well aware of the imprecise nature of many of its provisions, especially since it applies to concrete houses and not particularly to those with timber frames. It is possible to envisage that it could be applied more generously to different types of housing in Northern Ireland?
The Minister will be aware that in the provision that has been applied in England and Wales it has been for the local authority to bear the burden of different types of housing included within the Act. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about whether that will be more flexible in the case of Northern Ireland.
I shall broaden my comments slightly. Can the Minister enlighten the House on the situation with regard to the Divis flats? I understand that the great campaign with regard to the Divis flats has come to some conclusions. I read in the paper yesterday that there is some confusion about the future. Can the Minister tell the House whether they are now to be demolished? I am sure that the House would be pleased to hear about that.
What provision is the Minister making to hear representations on behalf of different communities within the Province under paragraph (6) of article 4 where it states:
Any question arising as to whether a building is or was at any time in a class designated under the Article shall he determined by the Department"?
If the Minister is accruing to himself virtually sole powers to designate properties under the order, he should tell us whether he will be giving an undertaking to accept representations on behalf of different communities, different towns and different parts of the Province.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) as well as those of the right hon. Member for South Down that if we had more devolution within the United Kingdom we would all welcome, in our different ways, being able to deal with this in a different context. Nevertheless, one accepts and welcomes the order as it is presented.

Mr. Needham: I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his kind comments about my fluency. They were particularly kind, coming from him, as I have always admired his fluency more than mine.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a pity that we shall not have the Assembly to give us the benefit of its advice in the future as it had done in this case. While I accept the arguments of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the need for close discussion and consideration before orders are brought forward, I believe that the Assembly and the method of devolution through the Assembly is a more effective way of going forward in the context of Northern Ireland than relying only on the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to the responses to the proposals in the draft order. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not read out at great length the Department's reply to the other suggestions that were made. Of course, I shall provide him, if he so requires, with our responses to those proposals. Let me assure him that we took all of them very much into account. The order is based on the need for parity with United Kingdom law. Therefore, it would not make much sense for us to propose different legislation for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked what happens to the proceeds of council house sales. They remain with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and are then spent by the executive— 100 per cent.— in the provision of new housing. That takes into account the stress that the Government lay on the importance of renewing and upgrading the housing stock in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one of our problems when he mentioned the cutback in the housing budget. It is not so much a cutback in Government funds as a reduction in the number of sales that the Housing Executive had expected which meant that it did not have the funds that it had projected to spend this year on new housing. Unfortunately, because of the other current stresses and strains on the Northern Ireland block, it has been impossible for the Government to make up the difference between the reduction in capital receipts and what the Housing Executive hoped it would be able to spend.
The hon. Gentleman referred to articles 38 and 39, on rent control, and the McDowell judgment. I have taken careful note of the points that he raised. We are fully committed to the private rented sector in Northern Ireland. It has long had, and will continue to have, a valuable role in providing houses for those who, for whatever reason, cannot buy their own home or are not housed in the public sector. We shall ensure that that important role continues to be backed and understood.
The right hon. Member for South Down told the House that this was a cock-eyed way in which to proceed. Perhaps that is a fair comment on much of what happens in the House with regard to Northern Ireland. In my judgment, it is a cock-eyed way to proceed that we do not have

Northern Ireland Members present when we are talking about an extremely important matter, and when the Assembly has disappeared and there is no other forum where those issues can be thoroughly and properly discussed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that his contributions to the debate are extremely important to the Government because they give a view of the feelings of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
I cannot go into a historical analogy of why the Housing Defects Act 1984 did not apply to Northern Ireland. All I can say is that because it is the Government's policy and preferred option to work towards devolution—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was.

Mr. Needham: And it still is. These issues would form part of a devolved administration were that to happen. Therefore, we have followed the course of separate legislation.
The right hon. Member for South Down rightly said that the voluntary scheme that we have applied in Northern Ireland is considerably more advanced than the statutory scheme that now underpins it by this order. I hope he will agree that the voluntary scheme has in some ways allowed us greater flexibility to introduce proposals at an earlier stage than would have been the case with a statutory scheme. For example, we have raised the discount from 50 to 60 per cent., and that began in June 1986. We have reduced from five years to three years the period for which someone must own a council house before losing discount, also from June this year. That is an advance on anything that has happened in that connection on the mainland. The right to repair has been in existence through the Housing Executive for more than a year, as have the equity sharing proposals which form part of this legislation.
While I accept that it is important and necessary that the schemes should have statutory backing, I hope that the right hon. Member for South Down will accept that the relationship between the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and the Housing Executive is close enough for it to bring forward the Government's intentions as early as is practicable for the benefit of those people in Northern Ireland who, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly states, have benefited to such a great extent from the right-to-buy provisions.
With regard to the point raised about Orlit owners having suffered, the fact is that only very recently has a scheme of repair been brought forward by PRC homes for these houses. I do not think that these owners have suffered either more or less than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), I can state that only 200 Orlit houses in Northern Ireland have so far been designated. Therefore, the problems in Northern Ireland in that respect are not of the extent, breadth or scope that exists in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, or in mine for that matter. That does not mean that we are not worried about the problems to which I referred at some length in my opening remarks. Because of the cost of repair of these homes, I stress again that, with hardly any exceptions, we shall re-purchase these homes. That would be the sensible way to proceed.
The issue of the Divis flats does not fall within the scope of the order. I can tell the hon. Member for Leeds, West that what happens at Divis has to be determined in the first instance by the Housing Executive. As yet, I have received nothing from the Housing Executive to suggest that it has any intention of changing the policy that it has laid down over a considerable period of time. However, I stress that in the first instance it is for the Housing Executive to determine. If it has any change of heart, I hope that it will inform me before I read about it in the newspapers. One can never be too sure about that when dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept the Minister's comments on the Divis flats. However, on the question of defective housing, is he referring to the 200 that are PRC problems, or is he including timber-framed houses, which are not covered by the English and Welsh legislation but which are known to be a problem?

Mr. Needham: I cannot give a full answer to that point. Article 4(1)(a) states:
buildings in the proposed class are defective by reason of their design or construction, and (b) by virtue of the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) having become generally known, the value of some or all of the dwellings concerned has been substantially reduced.
The key point is that not only are they defective by reason of design or construction, but that because that has become widely known they have lost a substantial amount of their value. If, in those circumstances in Northern Ireland, owners who have bought from the public sector a class of building that meets the provisions of article 4(1) (a) and (b), I shall ensure that under 4(6) we look carefully at any submissions that come to us from those owners. We have looked carefully at all submissions currently before us, but there are no substantial classes of buildings that fall under the provisions of article 4.
The House has discussed this order with the usual degree of interest and depth that applies to Northern Ireland business. It is important that we have this statutory backing to a voluntary proposal. Nevertheless, I believe that the current voluntary scheme is a major and significant benefit to the people of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

Northen Ireland (Criminal Justice)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 24th June he approved.
Before dealing with the content of the order, I should perhaps explain that following publication of the proposal a number of amendments have been made to the order. One of those relates to the retrospective nature of the continuing offence of wrongful occupation of premises. The draft order, as originally published, provided that even where the wrongful entry to premises took place before the order became effective an offence would nevertheless have been committed if that entry were combined with a failure to leave on being requested to do so after the commencement of the order. As a result of representations, we have amended the application of the new offence to relate only to entries after the commencement of the order.
In the same article we have now extended the power of magistrates to stay the issue of warrants in cases involving publicly-owned property from a maximum of four weeks to one of three months. We have also amended the reference to a stay or suspension of the execution of warrants in such cases to refer to a stay or suspension of issue of warrants. That was to clarify and remove misapprehensions that had become apparent and may have inferred some new direct police involvement rather than construing that the enforcement of warrants would still be subject to the existing enforcement of judgment office procedures in Northern Ireland.
The House may also wish to note that provision has now been made in the renumbered article 5, which deals with the duration of training school orders, to allow for their suspension during a term of detention in a young offenders centre. That has been introduced to avoid the complications caused by dual liability in cases where young people are being considered for compassionate or other home leave from centres.
A further amendment to this article limits the type of orders under which persons are liable to be detained in training schools, which will cease to have effect. We have basically drawn a line here so as to include those involving findings of guilt and to exclude orders imposed on young people requiring care and protection or for persistent truancy, and so on. It was felt that the exercise of administrative discretion with regard to cessation was more applicable to the latter types of case.
Two items have been omitted from the order because of technical reservations expressed during the consultative process. One involved the clarifying provision relating to duration of sentences where committals to prison for contempt of court were involved; the other provided for extended remand periods where persons were already serving sentences for contempt of court. We have decided, in the light of comments about difficulties with the practical operation and interpretation of these provisions, that they should no longer be included in the order. A further minor change has been made to the amendments and repeals provision by the addition of a correction of a printing error in the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
These changes in the content of the order since publication have, through deletion and the consequential renumbering of articles, altered its format to some degree. The amendments, which we consider to be improvements to the order, reflect the benefits to be gained from the consultative procedure for Orders in Council under the 1974 Act.
Having dealt with the amendments since publication of the proposal, I now wish to cover the main content of the order which makes provision for a miscellany of necessary alterations in the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Some of the provisions that are included are designed simply to bring criminal law in Northern Ireland into line with similar measures introduced in England and Wales over the past few years. Others are planned either to clarify or to strengthen existing law in the light of experience; while the remainder are steps to set right minor defects in earlier legislation.
One of the significant features is the alteration of the mode of trial for a range of offences. At present these offences are subject to trial only on indictment by a Crown court. The provisions of article 3 allow for summary trial of offences such as unlawful carnal knowledge and some types of burglary detailed in schedule 1 with the consent of both the accused and the prosecution. In addition, article 4 makes some less common offences contained in schedule 3 punishable on summary conviction only and sets new maximum penalties. These provisions should assist in reducing the number of cases, generally of a less serious nature, coming before Crown courts in Northern Ireland and they relate to provisions introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Law Act 1977.
The primary purpose of article 5 is to remedy a current defect in Northern Ireland law affecting training school orders. These provisions now ensure that such orders imposed on findings of guilt are not rendered ineffective by orders for detention in a young offenders centre either as a result of non-payment of a fine, or which are suspended or quashed on appeal. As I mentioned earlier when dealing with the changes to a proposal, provision has also been made to suspend training schools during terms of detention in young offenders centres.
Article 6 amends the powers of Northern Ireland courts to order a convicted person to compensate the injured party; reflecting similar changes made in England and Wales. Compensation orders will be able to be made instead of, as against in addition to, any other penalty. Preference is also now to be given to the payment of compensation orders where fines are also imposed and where the offender is unable to pay both.
I shall now turn, if I may, to a number of provisions which are included under the heading of "Miscellaneous" in the order. The existing maximum period for which a court can remand a defendant in custody where both the accused and prosecution consent is increased from 14 to 28 days by article 7. Under article 8 it is proposed that prisoners may be removed from a prison to a hospital, or similar institution for medical investigation or observation in addition to medical or surgical treatment. This amendment, which is by way of clarification, corresponds with one made for England and Wales by Criminal Justice Act 1982.
Article 9 makes a minor technical repeal consequential upon the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.
Article 10, read with schedule 5, in part re-enacts with amendments the existing law in Northern Ireland, which has been in force since 1946, regarding the wrongful taking possession or use of premises. These important provisions are specifically designed to provide a quicker and more effective means whereby those entitled to possession of residential premises can repossess them from those wrongfully occupying them. We are essentially dealing here with the problem of squatting. The House should take note of the safeguards contained in paragraphs (3) and (7) of the article, whereby protection is afforded to those with rights to possession. There are four main changes to existing law. These are the establishment of a continuing offence when persons fail to leave after being asked to do so by those entitled to possession; the mandatory issue of a warrant for repossession on conviction by a court, if appropriate, although the issue may be stayed; a general limitation of three months on a court's powers to stay the issue of such warrants in relation to premises owned and needed by certain public bodies—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive falls within this provision—and an increase in the maximum penalty on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2,000 and/or up to six months' imprisonment. These are similar penalties to those already available to courts in England and Wales when dealing with the generally comparable offence of adverse occupation of residential premises.
A further parity measure with England and Wales, in food and drugs, is introduced by article 11 and the associated schedule 4. These major amendments to the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 allow for trial on indictment for some of the more serious offences with associated increased penalties, and also include and extension of the limiting period under which prosecutions must be brought. These provisions should be viewed as a major strengthening of the powers to deal with those who place the health of the general public at risk.
I do not propose to deal with the remainder of the order as it contains minor consequential matters and corrections of defects in earlier legislation. I hope that the House will feel that I have given a reasonable summary of the main provisions of this order, which is by nature one generated by an ongoing process of review and update of criminal law in Northern Ireland. It should contribute to the improvement of Northern Ireland legislation in a range of unconnected areas. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Minister began by saying that certain provisions would not be retrospective. We welcome and appreciate that announcement.
The proposed Order in Council would make several changes in the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. I am reminded that a wag, who is not an hon. Member, has said that change and progress are not the same thing. Although the explanatory notes to the order refer to "improvements" in the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, it is devoutly to be wished that they are improvements rather than changes.
I welcome the fact that some of the proposed changes correspond to those made recently in England and Wales. Others have arisen through the experience of operation of the existing law in Northern Ireland. I am not entirely sure where that leaves the constitutionalists. Does it mean that there is to be parity of law between England, Scotland,


Northern Ireland and Wales but that the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland will be delineated in accordance with experience?
In an abstruse way, we see that integration and devolution are not mutually exclusive. As long as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, it is right that it should be governed by the same laws that govern the rest of us, and that, as it is separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, lessons should be learnt from the course of justice there.
The fact that the order also includes some minor or technical changes to remedy minor defects in earlier legislation is necessary, if incidental.
The parliamentary draftsmen of the Northern Ireland Office in the criminal law branch have, at least in the explanatory notes, unconsciously, no doubt, revealed how two opposite concepts can live side by side and make for better law.
Article 10 deals with the law governing protection against the
Wrongful taking possession, or use, of premises.
I note that it relates solely to the taking of premises rather than land. Although the image of the so-called peace convoy instantly comes to mind, it is not entirely apt, for those in the convoy were essentially looking for a home on land rather than in premises.
The Opposition were worried that those in Northern Ireland who have been in what might be described as unlawful possession of premises since the present troubles began in 1969 and 1970 might be caught by this Order in Council. They were the early victims of this last sectarian war between people of the same race, the same colour, the same language, the same religion—in that they worship the same God—and the same culture, but who, because of a gulf of history, are unable to live in a peaceable atmosphere as we understand it, buttressed in part by a sense of alienation, a lack of identity and, therefore, a common cause in life.
Those who lost their property in those days, and who have been squatting ever since, would have felt the scourge of the new regulations and might have been caught by the Order in Council. We welcome the Minister's statement that, after representations made to him, he has altered the terms of the order. That is in the best traditions of our democracy.
However, we must consider the provisions as they relate to squatting, as the Minister called it. He said that other changes had been made in the Order since its publication in draft form, and we welcome them, too. But we must ask whether it is desirable to criminalise squatting per se. After all, there are remedies in civil law, and, although it is often said that the law is an ass, essentially the law tries to keep a balance between the rights of parties. To come before the criminal courts for a civil matter — trespass upon property — would seem to be an infringement of one civil liberty in seeking to redress another. The object of the changes has been said to be a speedier and more effective remedy against squatting. We have expressed some of our doubts on the subject, while welcoming the Minister's statement that orders on publicly owned property will be extended to three months and his statement on the involvement of the police.
Article 7 amends article 47 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, under which a magistrates

court may remand an accused person in custody or on bail. In effect, the Government propose to extend the periods during which remand prisoners can be held with their consent without appearing before the courts. The period is extended to 28 days. I understand that the consent of the accused and the prosecution must be obtained. The prosecution will give its consent as a matter of practicality and convenience, but what of the accused? On what grounds is he likely to give his consent for a further 14 days in prison while his case is being prepared? Some remarkable reasons must be given to him, or he must be remarkably luckless or ill advised, for him to agree to spend another 14 days in gaol simply for administrative convenience. Of course, he can refuse, and will then spend only eight days in remand before being brought before a judge, except if he is already being detained under a custodial sentence.
We must be careful about the concept of administrative convenience. We must be careful that human rights are not further eroded. We must be careful that a person awaiting a proper trial should not be held in prison on remand for longer than is necessary. A remand prisoner is innocent until proven guilty and administrative convenience can lead to a lackadaisical approach to justice. The 28 days to which the order refers can so easily become the norm. I can imagine the view of the Northern Ireland Office that the purpose of article 7 is to reduce the necessary court appearances of the few prisoners who presently consent to appearance every 14 days. This measure might increase the potential for pressure to be put on prisoners to consent, and there is the additional danger that 28-day appearances may become the norm and find their way into later legislation, so eventually we find ourselves faced with the dropping of the concept of consent.
I seek not to draw the House into a discussion on its own legislative powers, however abundant they are, nor to query the vigilance of future legislators. But, with the mass of legislation by way of Bills and Orders in Council, it may be that in a few years consent is no longer a concept that drives along our administration of justice. The 28-day provision may become par for the course. If that happens, our system of justice will begin to silt up with its own delays. This institutionalisation of long periods of detention on remand will continue to cause us some anxiety.
I shall turn backwards again, no doubt to the confusion of the Minister and the House. We call it backmost, foremost where I come from. Article 5 deals with the duration of training school orders. The Minister has spent some time explaining to the House the precise nature of the article. It is designed to remedy a defect in the present law in Northern Ireland arising from the operation of section 87(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1986, which deals with the duration of a training school order. If a young person who is subject to a training school order appears in court on criminal charges and is found guilty, the court may decide to punish him in a number of ways.
This calls to mind the so-called Black report, which was the shorthand name for the report of the Children and Young Persons review group. I am not entirely sure whether the provisions of article 5 arise out of the report, but I am aware that on 30 March 1982 the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), made a statement to the House


about progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the report. If the Minister has the opportunity to reply, perhaps he will enlighten the House on whether provision is being made for some of the recommendations. If not, when can we expect the Government to implement the recommendations? If that is not done in this Session, possibly it will be done in the next.
I note from a briefing document kindly issued to the Whips' Office that if the enactment of the extended remand provisions is delayed there may be difficulties in relation to the proposed Bill to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which the Government hope to introduce in the next Session. We welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he will be implementing many of the Baker report's recommendations. We have long pressed the Government, including successive Secretaries of State, to do just that. I should like an explanation of how the present order relates to that proposed legislation as I wish to ascertain whether it will affect the bringing of that legislation before the House.
In the main, we welcome the order. We welcome the parity that is being brought about between Northern Ireland legislation and that governing the rest of the United Kingdom.
The debate provides us with an opportunity briefly to state that, although the Labour party believes in a united Ireland, an Ireland united by consent and through peaceful means, it also accepts that as long as Northern Ireland consents to remain part of the United Kingdom legislation affecting it should have parity with other legislation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is only right to acknowledge with appreciation the Minister's courtesy in supplying most of those taking part in the debate with an explanation in his letter of 13 June, which he has partly repeated tonight, of the differences between the proposal form of the order and the draft before us.
In every respect, it would appear that the changes made between those two stages are beneficial, and it is right that they have been made. But it should be put on the record that, whatever may be achieved by comments on proposals for an Order in Council, there is no substitute for the degree of scrutiny provided by the publication of a legislative proposal in Bill form or for its subsequent consideration in Committee and on Report. There is something about the Committee procedure, whereby queries, difficulties and objections have to be framed in advance in the form of amendments, which concentrates the minds of hon. Members and of the Government. It is unfortunate that under the Order in Council procedure, we have dispensed with the rigour introduced into legislation of the procedure by Bill, which applies to most of the substantive legislation that the House enacts.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) came near to making some assertions of principle about the relationship between the law of Northern Ireland and the law of the United Kingdom — or, rather, the law of England and Wales, not the law of England, Wales and Scotland, which is often different. I would associate myself with his view, that so long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, the onus is on those who would argue that there should be a difference between the law applying to the subject in England and Wales and the law applying to the subject in Northern Ireland. Most of the

order is concerned with assimilation of the law in Northern Ireland into the law as it has been produced in England and Wales by relatively recent legislation.
Perhaps I may briefly go through the order. Most of it is of an assimilatory character. For example, articles 3 and 4 refer to the mode of trial and involve assimilation wit h an England and Wales statute of 1977. Article 6 on compensation is an assimilation with an England and Wales statute of 1982. Article 8, on the removal of prisoners to hospitals, is an assimilation with an England and Wales statute of 1982. Article 9, involving forgery and counterfeiting, is consequential upon an England and Wales statute of 1981. Finally, article 11 on food anti drugs is consequential upon an England and Wales statute of 1982.
If the principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is generally accepted, I see no reason why Northern Ireland's citizens should have to wait nine years before the law applying to them is rendered uniform through changes made to the law in England and Wales. Convenience would accrue to the House and to all concerned, and would aid efficiency in the process of legislation, if changes to the law of England and Wales that inherently should apply in Northern Ireland were preceded by some thought during the, not brief, proceedings preceding legislation, so that the application can be made at the same time and in the context of a Bill, thus invoking those opportunities for concentration of attention on the part of those concerned which only procedure by Bill can provide. My emphasis upon that is reinforced by my study of article 13, entitled "Amendments and repeals." That is to put right acts or mistakes made on the occasion of legislation by Order in Council.
Perhaps tonight we are laying up work for a future sitting of the House in correcting mistakes which, unbeknown to us, we are making in this Order in Council. I wonder whether those mistakes in the legislation set out in article 13 would have escaped the proper scrutiny that the House gives to legislation before it in the form of Bills.
I have one substantive query to address to the Minister about article 10,
Wrongful taking possession, or use, of premises.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough touched on that. As far as I can see from the wording of the article, there is nothing which restricts its application to residential property, although in the explanatory material that accompanied the Order in Council it was constantly referred to as "residential premises".
I do not know whether this enactment applies to all premises or whether there is some provision, not visible to the naked eye, that restricts n to residential property. On balance, I come down, as did the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, in favour of the improvement of the procedure for gaining possession of property. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where squatting takes place in contemporary circumstances, it can rarely be justified by the emergency conditions that he said had existed in earlier years.
Squatting is commonly due to an attempt to get ahead of the allocation procedures that are rightly followed by the public housing authorities and to steal a march upon one's fellow citizens. Therefore, it deserves no sympathy and the more swiftly it can be dealt with the better for all concerned — including the squatters. I find from experience in my constituency that a family that squats


loses in the end because its opportunity of being allocated accommodation suitable to its needs is diminished rather than accelerated by the unlawful act.

Mr. William Cash: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice the phrase "land adjacent to"? Does he agree that against the background of the recent squatting and peace convoy activities that have taken place in Great Britain, that power could usefully be used to ensure that people do not squat on land adjacent to residential property, thereby invading the rights of other people?

Mr. Powell: That is an interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I hope that he will turn out to be right, all the more so since part of my constituency is suffering at the moment from a plague of itinerants occupying sites which, under the most generous interpretation, are in no way suitable, but perhaps that is not directly related to the purpose of article 10. I hope that the Minister will refer to the scope of the premises mentioned in that article.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I shall not be other than succinct at this hour, and I certainly do not wish to emulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in his skilful and lucid way of moving backwards through the order. Anything put forward by the Minister which eases the burden of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its job of law enforcement will, I hope, be welcomed by the House. That is in contrast to the appeal made today by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who urged the RUC to rebel against the provisions that it is currently asked to enforce.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that we should examine Bills line by line and clause by clause. He is the lone voice among his Ulster colleagues, which may illustrate the fact that the undermining of that process has been encouraged by other hon. Members. Orders and legislation relating to Northern Ireland are introduced in an attempt to ameliorate the situation. To that extent, we welcome provisions which attempt to tidy up a miscellaneous conglomeration of issues.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to remands. In previous debates I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to the long period that is spent on remand by many prisoners in the Province and said that it was excessive. He would welcome its reduction. Is the Minister able to say whether the order will lead to the time spent on remand being reduced? Is he also able to say whether the provision to extend from 14 to 28 days, by consent, appearance in court on remand will reduce the pressure to shorten the time spent on remand before people are brought to trial, or whether this is just a way of hiding from the prospect of shortening that period? I should deprecate an extension of that period. In Scotland there is a limitation by statute to 110 days. A similar limitation ought to apply not only in the Province but in England and Wales.
I hope that all hon. Members will welcome the order. I hope, too, that the Minister will be able to reply to my points.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) gave a general welcome to the order. In particular, he welcomed the elimination of the element of retrospection from its provisions. It is a fine balance, but I believe that it is right that no element of retrospection should be enshrined in legislation. Strong representations were made to us, and I am glad that we were able to respond to them.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to article 10. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to the criminalisation of squatting per se. The order seeks to strike a balance between the rights of different groups of citizens. The right hon. Member for South Down made it very clear that those who squat frequently deny access to more deserving cases.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive adopts a liberal and humane attitude towards those who squat. If premises are not immediately needed, in return for a modest charge for use and occupation that occupation is licensed until such time as the premises are needed. Where squatters are distorting the operation of the selection procedure for the allocation of housing, it is appropriate that the rights that are given to it by this order should be available to a public authority that is acting in the public interest.
Article 7 relates to the 28-day remand period. This is a modest proposal. It could lead to a useful saving of resources, as long as it is based on consent. Just under 10 per cent. of remands are, by consent, extended to 14 days. A somewhat smaller percentage may agree to an extension to 28 days. That would lead to a saving in the time of the court and also to a saving of both prison and police resources in Northern Ireland. It is a modest proposal, but I emphasise that in this case at least it is based entirely on consent. When we debate in the autumn the emergency provisions legislation, the principle of consent will not, as I made clear to the House on a previous occasion, be part of the proposals.
I was asked about training school orders and the Black report and progress on that. Consultations are still going on between the Government, those with training school interests, and those concerned with the care and welfare of young people. I appreciate that there has been a long delay in seeing how the principles of the Black report can be incorporated into the new arrangements for the treatment both of young offenders and care cases, and I hope that it will not be too long before we shall have proposals.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) asked about the provisions for 28-day remands and the delays in coming to trial, and I assure him that they have no link. I am extremely concerned about the delays in bringing cases to trial, although the delays are about the same as the average delay for those in England and Wales, and substantially shorter than the delays in the Metropolitan police district, part of which I represent.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has sought both the appointment of extra judges in the High Court and in the county court in Northern Ireland, and the appointment of a substantial extra number of Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland to alleviate trial delays. We have likewise sought, by establishing a working party in Northern Ireland, to look into all the factors that


make for delay in cases coming to trial to see how they can be minimised. Those of us who are familiar with the workings of the legal system in Northern Ireland know that in many cases the choice of defence counsel can be an important factor in the delays of some of the cases coming for trial.
I hope that I have dealt with all the specific points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 24th June he approved.

BRITISH COUNCIL AND COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

BRITISH COUNCIL AND COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE SUPERANNUATION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Superannuation Act 1972; and
(b) payments into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

A140 Road (Suffolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Michael Lord: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity of debating the subject of the A140 trunk road in Suffolk. When I made my maiden speech in 1983, I said that I thought that one of the biggest problems facing my new constituency would be the effect on its roads, villages and towns of the rapidly increasing volume of traffic. Little did I realise just how true my forecast would turn out to be.
After moving into my constituency and making our family home there since 1983, my family has had personal and daily experience of the problems facing some of the roads in general and the A140 in particular. The continuing success and expansion of our east coast ports and the growth of business generally in East Anglia have greatly increased the numbers of vehicles on our roads, and these numbers, particularly the high number of heavy goods vehicles among them, have caused problems that could not have been envisaged a few years ago.
The subject of the debate, the A140, is the only trunk road running north-south through the centre of Suffolk. My particular concern is with that part of it that runs through my constituency from its junction with the A45 in the south to the northern border of Scole.
I am able to speak from personal experience. I live in the north of my constituency, in the village of Mellis, and therefore have to travel regularly down the A140 to Ipswich, a quarter of which town is in my constituency. Moreover, for the past two years my daughter has been at school in Ipswich and my wife has regularly travelled that section of road four times a day.
The A140 is extremely deceptive. It looks as if it should be possible to travel on it in safety at high speeds, and along some sections that is the case. Unfortunately, other sections and hazards may be encountered which make it far more dangerous than it looks. The most recent accident figures sadly prove that beyond any shadow of doubt.
In 1983 the number of accidents involving personal injury on this stretch of road was 27, in 1984 it was 30 and in 1985 the figure rose to 40—a 33 per cent. increase on the previous year. I have personal knowledge of two of those accidents which occurred at exactly the same spot within the past 12 months, only a short distance from my home near the village of Yaxley. In both cases the drivers had been deluded by the character of the road's northern end into thinking that they could drive faster than they could and without the fear of any obstruction.
In the first instance, a coach, carrying a youth orchestra from Germany, did not realise that the vehicle in front, delivering newspapers, was stationary. At the last moment the coach driver swerved into the path of an on-coming lorry and collided with it. Fortunately, and mainly due to the quick reflexes of the lorry driver, no one was killed, although there were serious injuries. The outcome could easily have been much more horrific.
I visited the scene of that crash soon after it happened, and among the people already helping the injured was a constituent, Professor John Buxton, outside whose house the crash occurred. Some months later he was being driven home in the direction in which the coach had been travelling. The driver stopped before turning right into


Professor Buxton's home to allow oncoming traffic to pass. In precisely the same way as before, another vehicle travelling in the same direction, southwards, failed to realise that the car was stationary and shunted him forwards and sideways across the path of an oncoming lorry. Professor Buxton, lucky to be alive, was taken to Ipswich hospital with multiple injuries and is only now recovering.
I am aware that it can be argued that such accidents are due to a lack of care on the part of drivers and that it is difficult to prevent them from happening, but this type of accident is much more likely to happen on some roads than on others. The A140 is a trunk road and several sections of it are long and straight and give the impression that it can be driven along at speed. Unfortunately, for many reasons that is not so.
Other hazards make the road even more dangerous. The sheer volume of traffic is increasing rapidly year by year. The national road traffic forecast published in December 1984 gives a range of national average growth rates between 1980 and 1985 from about 11 per cent. to about 16 per cent. Of the five sites along this stretch of the A140 where measurements are regularly taken, one falls below 11 per cent., three are between 11 per cent. and 16 per cent., and at one point the growth rate is in excess of 17 per cent. Clearly, traffic is increasing on this road at or above the national average, but, more important, there appears to be an extremely high percentage in those totals of heavy goods vehicles. As a major through route it carries a large number of heavy commercial vehicles which amount to one fifth of the daily total flow.
Perhaps more importantly, with accidents very much in mind, it needs to be said that along this length of road there are good and bad stretches. For example, there is a short piece of dual carriageway at the southern end of the A140 just before it joins the A45 near the village of Coddenham. The only problem is that while the good bits are not too bad, the bad bits are appalling.
Travelling northwards from the junction with the A45 there is a section of road known as Creeting Bottoms, which I can only describe as being more like the big dipper at Blackpool than a trunk road. My hon. Friend the Minister really would have to see it for himself to believe just how the road at that point dips and bends in the most alarming way. I shall return later to the question of my hon. Friend seeing it for himself.
A little further north, where the A140 is crossed by the A1120 in the village of Little Stonham, there are again extremely difficult bends to negotiate at the bottom of steep hills as well as at the intersection with the A1120 before that trunk road continues straight through the heart of the village.
Further north again, in the village of Brockford, there are no fewer than three minor road junctions off what is known as Brockford street. At that point, as long ago as 1978, 6,500 vehicles a day were recorded through the village, and 20 per cent. of those were heavy goods vehicles. The village takes a constant pounding from that volume of traffic, and turning into or out of minor roads, houses or shops is an extremely hazardous operation.
Bypasses to both Little Stonham and Brockford were approved as long ago as 1968 by the former East Suffolk county council when it had responsibility for the road,

after considerable public consultation and taking account of views expressed by all local authorities and other consultees. Since then, nothing has happened, despite the mounting volume of traffic.
Again in 1968, when the county council had responsibility for the A140, it was proposed to make it dual carriageway. The idea was that the bypasses of Little Stonham and Brockford would he incorporated into the dual carriageway construction. However, since then the criteria which are used to decide those matters, such as traffic flow, and so on, have been changed. Although up to 1975 some improvements were carried out, which could ultimately have been incorporated into a dual carriageway, since 1979 no significant improvements have been made. I repeat, that is all despite the increase in traffic volume and the recognised black spots on the roads.
An additional, although in many ways separate, problem that occurs more frequently on the A140 than on other roads is that caused by slow-moving agricultural vehicles having to travel along stretches of the trunk road in order to get to and from the fields in the course of their daily work. Large numbers of vehicles travelling at relatively high speeds suddenly coming up behind such vehicles are frequently the cause of, at best, fierce braking, and, at worst, more accidents.
Clearly, the farmer cannot be blamed because he is only going about his normal work and has to get from one field to another with his machinery. However, the problem is being exacerbated by the fact that many farmers are now using the bodies from old heavy goods vehicles, modified as trailers, to tow behind their tractors. The result is that another motorist, when approaching that kind of vehicle from the rear, sees what he assumes to be a heavy goods vehicle which again he assumes will be doing a reasonable speed. Unfortunately, when he realises that it is only travelling at perhaps 5 or 10 mph it is often too late.
I have taken up that matter with the Department of Transport in the past and locally with the National Farmers Union and the county council. Apparently, it is permissible to use amber flashing lights on any vehicle which is incapable of travelling at more than 25 mph. There is a great deal of evidence to show that if such warning lights are used, other motorists spot those slow-moving vehicles well in advance and the last-minute braking and problems resulting from it can be avoided.
Unfortunately, although all those with whom I discussed this were in favour of some action, nothing as yet has happened. I ask the Minister to look into this again to see what steps may be taken, perhaps with the possibility of introducing legislation if that proves to be necessary.
I have discussed the problems of the A140 in some depth with Suffolk county council, and I know that the county surveyor believes that, in the matter of the trunk roads in the county, the improvement of the A140 from the A45 to Scole should now receive the highest possible priority.
Whether the road is made into a dual carriageway or whether improvements are carried out at the worst places along its length with a view to making the whole length a dual carriageway in time, I am not sure. However, I am sure that something must be done urgently. Whatever is decided will take some time to programme, and, for the reasons I have already given, I do not believe that time is on our side.
Here and now I would like to extend an invitation to my hon. Friend the Minister to come to central Suffolk and drive with me along the length of the road to see for himself the enormous problems that are occurring along its length and what my constituents are having to put up with, whether they are driving along the road or living in the villages affected by it. I am sure that if he will come he will be convinced of the need for urgent action.
We in Suffolk do not want roads for roads sake, nor are we anxious to encourage unnecessary traffic through our countryside. However, the traffic using the road at the moment has been forced on and through Suffolk by the success and activity of our east coast ports and other expanding businesses. In truth, we must not complain because much of it is helping to bring jobs to our towns and villages. However, it is crucial that that increased traffic is dealt with as efficiently and safely as possible. If that does not happen, not only will the quality of life in our villages deteriorate and the efficiency of our businesses be jeopardised, but I am sure that we will sec more serious accidents, more injuries and more loss of life, which cannot be tolerated.
This is a trunk road. Responsibility for it lies with my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department. Having put the case before him on behalf of my constituents, I await his reply with the greatest concern.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) has a reputation as a fine and conscientious Member of Parliament. He and his family are well recognised, especially because, as he said, his wife and daughter spend all their time driving up and down to Ipswich. I do not know whether they carry advertisements for him on the side of their car. The days are long gone when a Member of Parliament could represent his constituency by remote control, and my hon. Friend has shown by the detail of his speech and the passionate way in which he has put forward his constituents' interests that they are well served by him.
I went to central Suffolk in the days of his predecessor; in fact in the days of the previous Labour Government. If I had been the Minister responsible for roads and traffic in those days, I would have had no words of comfort at all. The sad truth is that for all the calls for increased infrastructure spending, the real roads programme was cut in half between 1973 and 1979–80. Many historic towns and villages could not have their bypasses; and things got progressively worse. If I may speak confidentially, so much money is being spent in East Anglia now, and so much is proposed to be spent in the future, that if other regions of the country got to know about it they would feel jealous.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that confirmation from my hon. Friend.
I went to open the Ely and Littleport bypass and briefed myself on the various proposals for what we call the eastern region, although it may be a rather wider description of East Anglia than my hon. Friend would accept, and it runs to hundreds of millions of pounds.
I feel a great affinity for my hon. Friend's concerns, because my great-grandfather was rector of Lavenham. I

have spent many years driving from Cambridge across to the east coast for one reason or another on the good roads and the bad roads, and for a year I was a salesman in East Anglia having to travel north and south as well as east and west. East Anglia has, as my hon. Friend described, a number of roads which are not as safe as they should be.
The debate provides an opportunity for me to say a word in particular about the A140, which is a relatively young trunk road. It attained trunk road status in 1978 because of increased use of the road for strategic traffic between London and Norfolk. A high proportion is through traffic—about 30 to 40 per cent.—and over 20 per cent. is heavy vehicles.
There are communities that would still like to be added to the bypass programme. I have a paragraph in most of my speeches saying that I feel that I carry a similar responsibility to that of Home Secretaries in the days before capital punishment was abolished. I control where lives are saved. My hon. Friend is rightly asking for the risk of accidents to be reduced on his roads. Other hon. Members rightly put forward the same claim for their own areas. In fact, that is one of the advantages of our single constituency system of parliamentary representation. I somehow doubt that if we went in for multi-Member constituencies there would be the same attention to detail as we now have in issues concerning roads.
If I decided to approve major spending on trunk roads where it had a lesser benefit in terms of safety or economic growth, I would rightly be accused of not having the right priorities. I shall consider all that my hon. Friend said in the debate, and make sure that we have the best chance of getting small improvements or larger improvements on the A140 and go on giving proper consideration to the needs of the communities that he mentioned.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving illustrative examples. I hope that he will pass our best wishes to Professor John Buxton. It is not entertaining to be involved in a traffic accident, especially when it happened because one was giving way, as one rightly should, to oncoming traffic before turning right.
A week or so ago I spent a day with some of the county surveyors of East Anglia, looking at accident investigation and prevention sites. The AIP is a low-cost scheme, whereby it is possible to reduce the incidence of accidents, and accidents involving personal injury—roughly one in 10—by making sure that there is proper analysis and investigation of where accidents take place and in what conditions. Such investigations include accidents involving perceptual errors by drivers. That is a common theme to many of the points that my hon. Friend made.
My hon. Friend rightly said that we do not want unnecessary new roads, which are expensive in money and agricultural land. We want to make sure that the resources used are properly justified. As my hon. Friend would expect, in determining standards we must satisfy the needs of the traffic expected on particular lengths. We do not provide a particular standard just because a road is called a trunk road. We try to meet likely need rather than provide uniformity just because of classification as a trunk road.
I should like to say a word to those from the London area who think that just because we trunk about 70 miles of road it will automatically be dualled. My hon. Friend will confirm that that is not so. In fact, about 60 per cent. of our national roads are not dual carriageways.
We have introduced new departmental standards to allow greater flexibility in assessing the carriageway width to be adopted where we improve a road or provide a new road. This allows more new routes to be assessed as to whether they should be dual carriageways. I do not want to overstate the effect. Frankly, it is unlikely to alter dramatically the overall balance between single and dual carriageways. The new standards allow a lower threshold for considering whether dualling would be right. The road would not necessarily be built to that standard just because it came above the lower threshold that we can now use for consideration. It is one factor among others. We need to consider the economic and the environmental impact of particular schemes. I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the Department of Transport in our regional offices and at headquarters. Most people now accept that the environmental considerations are taken into account to a greater extent than previously. The people who have worked out better methods of proceeding in this context do not normally receive any recognition. People now take for granted the fact that roads are blended into the landscape wherever possible.
The new threshold for considering dual carriageways is 11,000 vehicles a day. Current traffic flows on the A140 range from 7,500 to 9,000 vehicles a day. I must say—and I do not say this in any sense to comfort my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central — that the average accident rate for that route is not above average for that kind of road. I will continue to see whether factors arise which justify special measures and we will continue to monitor the route as traffic increases. My hon. Friend has stated that the rate of traffic growth in East Anglia and in his part of Suffolk has been above average.
I have mentioned that accident investigation and prevention teams continue to identify accident black spots. We are considering schemes that have a significant impact at specific locations where the rate is higher than we think should be tolerated.
Along the Suffolk length of the A140 improvements have already been made at the B1078 junction where a right turning lane has been provided. At the Yaxley crossroads signing and carriageway markings have been improved and the junction widened. Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central, improvements were made at the B1118 Oakley crossroads early last year when the road was widened, traffic islands were constructed and improvements made to signing and to carriageway markings.
That is a good example of an AIP scheme. I would ask anyone involved in such matters, whether they be members of a county highway authority or in the Department, to keep their eyes and ears open for problems and also to pay attention to representations made by the public and by Members of Parliament. Consideration of ideas that have been put forward or anxieties about a particular junction or stretch of road can lead to improvements. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have any roads that you are worried about, I hope that you, as well as other hon. Members present, will take up my invitation.
In the three years before the improvements at the Oakley crossroads there were seven personal injury accidents. Since then there as been one injury accident in

18 months. That is the level of improvement that we are seeking. We welcome the work which leads to such a reduction.
Another accident site has been identified at the A1120 Stonham crossroads. There have been 12 injury accidents there in three years and we are now considering what improvements can best be made. We are looking at the possibility of further additions where these can be justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central referred to the desirability of bypassing the villages of Little Stonham and Earl Stonham. I will consider my hon. Friend's points and if, after consideration, we have to decide that the economic case is not strong enough and that other competing claims on our resources appear to have higher priority, that will not be a final decision. These issues are reviewed and we will continue to keep an eye on the position. However, I cannot promise—certainly not tonight that such a scheme would secure a place in the programme in the near future.
In conjunction with the county council, we are considering the case for bypassing Brockford, but we have not yet identified a viable scheme which might go into the programme. As I say, we give high priority to monitoring safety and to assessing road accidents. Last year road accidents were responsible for 5,200 deaths and 315,000 injuries.
I refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend about slow moving agricultural vehicles. There was one point which I have not heard before. He referred to the adaptation of what appeared to be conventional heavy goods trailers being towed behind agricultural tractors. I will try to gather more information on that and, if necessary, will ask my hon. Friend for examples for the experts to examine.
I also think that my hon. Friend is right about having talks with the National Farmers Union on the desirability of slow-moving agricultural vehicles having flashing lights so that other drivers may know what is happening. I give a warning to drivers: do not expect every slow-moving vehicle to have a flashing beacon. For example, a horse-drawn cart—normally used for recreation—may be on the road, as may be cyclists. There is always the possibility that car may have broken down around the bend or that a driver may be waiting to turn right into a drive. There is a responsibility on all road users, whether in private cars or commercial vehicles, to drive so that we can stop within the distance that we can see, and to notice what is happening in front of us.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about the need to make it easier for people to understand what they are seeing. I shall do all that I can to emphasise the message. I shall also consider, perhaps in consultation with others, whether in future there should be compulsory legislation to ensure that vehicles that owners know will be moving slowly are better identified.
I shall write to my hon. Friend about any of his points with which I have not been able to deal. We can discuss any points that he thinks we should go through together. I do not think that I shall be able to visit Suffolk this side of the recess, but if I can discover some suitable time later in the year I should like to see the conditions that he has described so eloquently to the House. Quite frankly, I should like to spend much more time going out and about, not only to assess potential needs but to stand at the crossroads that he identified as an accident site and to obtain more publicity for that sort of thing.
The 40 accidents last year on my hon. Friend's section of the A140 might illustrate other AIP sites with which we should deal. Even if dualling or some other major improvement has to be delayed, there may be works that can be done in an attempt to find a way of improving the safety and relieving some of the danger.
My hon. Friend has done a service to the House as well as to his constituents. There cannot be too much attention

paid to these issues. As road safety improves, it will be because of debates such as this initiated by mv hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.